Day One

[ClydeR]

Trump has made 41 distinct promises about what he says he wants to do "on day one" as president, and he has mentioned those promises more than 200 times on the campaign trail, according to a Washington Post analysis of his speeches from his campaign launch in Nov. 2022 to Sept. 2024.

More... (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/21/trump-day-one-promises-president-election/)


Below are some of the things Trump plans for Day One. How many, if any, will he actually do on Day One? And is Day One the day of the inauguration or the next day?


The two promises he brings up most often — "begin the largest deportation operation in American history" and "eliminate every open borders policy of the Biden administration" — signal a harsh crackdown on immigration but offer few details on what specific actions he'd take in the White House.


Trump has promised 31 times to repeal what he describes as Biden's "electric vehicle mandate." Biden hasn't issued any specific "mandate" on electric vehicles, but the phrase has become a buzzword among Republicans, generally referring to the Biden administration's fuel emissions standards and a set of incentives — some of them approved by Congress — to promote electric-vehicle production.


Trump has also said nine times that he will "repeal the Green New Deal." The term "Green New Deal" originated in a 2019 climate change resolution proposed by liberal congressional Democrats. Republicans have since used it to refer to the environmental components of the Inflation Reduction Act and other environmental policies they disagree with.


In addition to his threats to cut school funding over discussions of gender identity, Trump has vowed on day one to enact policies that would affect the personal lives of transgender Americans.


He has vowed to repeal three of Biden's executive orders on his first day — one related to the growth of AI, one expanding background checks for gun purchases, and one promoting diversity, equity and inclusion in the federal workforce.


Trump has also floated more than a dozen other day-one promises including veterans' issues and Justice Department prosecutions. He has made at least seven day-one remarks related to easing various fishing commercial regulations, and three references to eliminating taxes on tips, a proposal both he and Harris have brought up on the campaign trail.

[~Rocktar~]

A Thread For ClydeR (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?137591-A-Thread-For-ClydeR)

[Methais]

A Thread For ClydeR (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?137591-A-Thread-For-ClydeR)

A Thread For ClydeR (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?137591-A-Thread-For-ClydeR)

[ClydeR]

In October, Trump promised North Carolina voters that he would change the name of Fort Liberty to Fort Bragg, after the Confederate General Braxton Bragg. What action should Trump take to honor that promise?


“I think I just learned the secret to winning absolutely and by massive margins. I’m going to promise to you … that we’re going to change the name back to Fort Bragg,” the former president said after taking a question about missile defense from a man who identified himself as an active duty soldier at the base.

More... (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/04/trump-rename-army-confederate-general-00182606)

[Methais]

In October, Trump promised North Carolina voters that he would change the name of Fort Liberty to Fort Bragg, after the Confederate General Braxton Bragg. What action should Trump take to honor that promise?

A Thread For ClydeR (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?137591-A-Thread-For-ClydeR)

[joeyb]

do you think trump goes golfing on day one?

[ClydeR]

I almost forgot about this one..


Former President Trump is returning to his calls to remove birthright citizenship, with his 2024 White House campaign announcing Tuesday he would seek to end it via executive order on his first day in office.

More... (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4026334-trump-pledges-to-end-birthright-citizenship-on-first-day-in-office/)


In related news, Trump plans to appoint as "border czar" the person responsible for the Trump's disastrous first-term family separation policy, who recently said on 60 Minutes that the way to avoid family separation is to deport children born on this country at the same time you deport their parents who entered illegally..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvCUBIkJv6c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvCUBIkJv6c

[ClydeR]

President Trump admitted prior to the inauguration that a Constitutional amendment would be required to change the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Taking an oath to uphold the Constitution yesterday did not stop him from issuing an executive order purporting to change birthright citizenship. The executive order, quoted in full below, is poorly written. I could have written a more eloquent and persuasive document. That's not bragging, since almost anyone could have done better work. Whoever wrote this phoned it in.

Let's explore what the order says with a simple example. If a child's parents are in the U.S. illegally at the time of the child's birth, the order claims that the child is not a U.S. citizen because the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. If the child, while still an infant, is being mistreated by its parents, is the child subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. so that the government can remove the child from the parents and direct where the child should be kept? If the child remains in the U.S. illegally and later commits a crime in the U.S., is the child still not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?

Under Trump's interpretation of the 14th amendment, freed slaves born in the U.S. would not have become citizens. That was the primary purpose of the citizenship clause.

Furthermore, Trump's order is prospective only, which is clear evidence that Trump is trying to change the Constitution, instead of merely interpret it. The Constitution either gives citizenship to someone born in this country or does not. Trump cannot cause the Constitution to mean one thing today and another 30 days from now.


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.

Sec. 3. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order.

(b) The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order’s implementation with respect to their operations and activities.

Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) “Mother” means the immediate female biological progenitor.

(b) “Father” means the immediate male biological progenitor.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 20, 2025.

More... (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/)

[Suppressed Poet]

President Trump admitted prior to the inauguration that a Constitutional amendment would be required to change the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Taking an oath to uphold the Constitution yesterday did not stop him from issuing an executive order purporting to change birthright citizenship. The executive order, quoted in full below, is poorly written. I could have written a more eloquent and persuasive document. That's not bragging, since almost anyone could have done better work. Whoever wrote this phoned it in.

Let's explore what the order says with a simple example. If a child's parents are in the U.S. illegally at the time of the child's birth, the order claims that the child is not a U.S. citizen because the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. If the child, while still an infant, is being mistreated by its parents, is the child subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. so that the government can remove the child from the parents and direct where the child should be kept? If the child remains in the U.S. illegally and later commits a crime in the U.S., is the child still not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?

Under Trump's interpretation of the 14th amendment, freed slaves born in the U.S. would not have become citizens. That was the primary purpose of the citizenship clause.

Furthermore, Trump's order is prospective only, which is clear evidence that Trump is trying to change the Constitution, instead of merely interpret it. The Constitution either gives citizenship to someone born in this country or does not. Trump cannot cause the Constitution to mean one thing today and another 30 days from now.

That’s for SCOTUS to eventually decide, not you. We’ll see how it plays out after many “exhausting” court proceedings.

[Gelston]

That’s for SCOTUS to eventually decide, not you. We’ll see how it plays out after many “exhausting” court proceedings.

wut?

The Amendment literally says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

It is pretty fucking cut and dry. It isn't really open to interpretation due to vagaries.

[Suppressed Poet]

wut?

The Amendment literally says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

It is pretty fucking cut and dry. It isn't really open to interpretation due to vagaries.

I don’t disagree and expect the EO will be eventually be declared unconstitutional in the courts. This issue has been challenged before. I suspect Trump knows this as well, but he is doing it for the short term for deportation & border security efforts.

The 2nd amendment is also cut and dry, but tell that to the Democrats. Rights have limits as they say. I don’t necessarily like it when Presidents overextend their reach of power, but Trump isn’t the first nor will be the last to challenge certain aspects of the Constitution. I’ve been saying for years, Republican politicians need to stop taking the high ground and play the same dirty game that Democrats do.

[Gelston]

I don’t disagree and expect the EO will be eventually be declared unconstitutional in the courts. This issue has been challenged before. I suspect Trump knows this as well, but he is doing it for the short term for deportation & border security efforts.

The 2nd amendment is also cut and dry, but tell that to the Democrats. Rights have limits as they say. I don’t necessarily like it when Presidents overextend their reach of power, but Trump isn’t the first nor will be the last to challenge certain aspects of the Constitution. I’ve been saying for years, Republican politicians need to stop taking the high ground and play the same dirty game that Democrats do.

It has been challenged 4 times before, and only once has it been ruled against (Laten 1890s) against Native Americans and citizenship, as SCOTUS didn't consider people born on Reservations to be US Citizens, much like people born on American Samoa today. The other 3 challenges have reaffirmed or expanded the language to include that the Government may not strip citizenship against someone's will. None of the challenges have EVER been against birthright citizenship in the nation proper, because it is stated in plain fucking English that anyone born in the US is a citizen.

The 2nd Amendment is different in that it doesn't specify the type of weaponry. If they had written it as "The right to bear arms by all citizens, concurrent with the current technology level of the US military, shall not be infringed or regulated" then that would be equal to how the 14th Amendment is written.

[Suppressed Poet]

It has been challenged 4 times before, and only once has it been ruled against (Laten 1890s) against Native Americans and citizenship, as SCOTUS didn't consider people born on Reservations to be US Citizens, much like people born on American Samoa today. The other 3 challenges have reaffirmed or expanded the language to include that the Government may not strip citizenship against someone's will. None of the challenges have EVER been against birthright citizenship in the nation proper, because it is stated in plain fucking English that anyone born in the US is a citizen.

The 2nd Amendment is different in that it doesn't specify the type of weaponry. If they had written it as "The right to bear arms by all citizens, concurrent with the current technology level of the US military, shall not be infringed or regulated" then that would be equal to how the 14th Amendment is written.

We put Japanese ancestry American born citizens in internment camps. (Which to be clear I find morally reprehensible.)

I haven’t read into the extent of all of Trump’s legal challenges and basis for this action, but there are always exceptions. It’s never just cut and dry.

[Gelston]

We put Japanese ancestry American born citizens in internment camps. (Which to be clear I find morally reprehensible.)

I haven’t read into the extent of all of Trump’s legal challenges and basis for this action, but there are always exceptions. It’s never just cut and dry.

It is very cut and dry. They were not stripped of citizenship and all the ones that were citizens were released by the Supreme Court when that case finally worked its way up in 1944. This wasn't a 14th Amendment case, but rather, a 5th Amendment case concerning Due Process.

[Suppressed Poet]

It is very cut and dry. They were not stripped of citizenship and all the ones that were citizens were released by the Supreme Court when that case finally worked its way up in 1944. This wasn't a 14th Amendment case, but rather, a 5th Amendment case concerning Due Process.

Fine and fair.

My point is while I agree with you Trump’s actions very likely violates the 14th amendment, there is a legal process that must be played out. Somebody is going to sue and it will be sorted out in the slow moving judicial system. That’s our process. Trump is not the first president nor will be the last to use their powers to challenge certain articles/amendments to the constitution in order to achieve their desired outcome. Example: Biden’s student loan forgiveness even though he knew doing so was extrajudicial.

[Gelston]

Fine and fair.

My point is while I agree with you Trump’s actions very likely violates the 14th amendment, there is a legal process that must be played out. Somebody is going to sue and it will be sorted out in the slow moving judicial system. That’s our process. Trump is not the first president nor will be the last to use their powers to challenge certain articles/amendments to the constitution in order to achieve their desired outcome. Example: Biden’s student loan forgiveness even though he knew doing so was extrajudicial.

First and foremost, an Executive Order has to be based on existing law. In that, Congress has the power to overturn any executive order.

I can't see this one going anywhere, it is just a waste of time. Trump even knows it.

[Gelston]

Hell, ACLU immediately challenge the EO anyways. It won't last the week.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-advocates-sue-trump-administration-over-birthright-citizenship-executive-order

[Suppressed Poet]

First and foremost, an Executive Order has to be based on existing law. In that, Congress has the power to overturn any executive order.

I can't see this one going anywhere, it is just a waste of time. Trump even knows it.

I wish Presidents did not use EOs in the volume and manner that they do today, but that precedent was set by Obama after losing the majority in Congress.

[Methais]

I wish Presidents did not use EOs in the volume and manner that they do today, but that precedent was set by Obama after losing the majority in Congress.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1GDIoTHz4s

[ClydeR]

I wish Presidents did not use EOs in the volume and manner that they do today, but that precedent was set by Obama after losing the majority in Congress.

Where did you get that idea?

As you can see in the chart below from the BBC, Obama issued fewer EOs than any recent two-term President. During Obama's first term, he issued fewer EOs than any recent President during the President's first term, including Trump. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite of what you said. Obama was the most conservative President in the use of EOs. During his first term, Trump was the least conservative in the use of EOs.


https://i.imgur.com/ny8WGrI.jpeg
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69606315

[Suppressed Poet]

Where did you get that idea?

As you can see in the chart below from the BBC, Obama issued fewer EOs than any recent two-term President. During Obama's first term, he issued fewer EOs than any recent President during the President's first term, including Trump. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite of what you said. Obama was the most conservative President in the use of EOs. During his first term, Trump was the least conservative in the use of EOs.


https://i.imgur.com/ny8WGrI.jpeg
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69606315

He called them “presidential memorandum” which is simply EO by another name. When you include those, the number is much higher.

Your attempts to rewrite history for your narrative have failed.

[Methais]

He called them “presidential memorandum” which is simply EO by another name. When you include those, the number is much higher.

Your attempts to rewrite history for your narrative have failed.

You can add another 644 to Obama's list, making the total 920.

List of presidential memoranda by Barack Obama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_memoranda_by_Barack_Obama)




Why you always have to be so full of shit ClydeRetard?

[Suppressed Poet]

I guess it was 10+ years ago, but ClydeR seems to forget Obama throwing a fit when Democrats didn’t have complete control of Congress. After that happened, he used the power of executive actions to bypass the legislative process (with some directives being blatantly extrajudicial). This set a new precedent and opened Pandora’s Box. Since then both Trump & Biden both have been trigger happy with executive orders, memorandums, and directives.

Obama publicly addressing criticism about taking executive action when Congress doesn’t go his way:

https://youtu.be/vTIDfzUXhmg?si=b9GjOfyenXGvIPT8

[Tgo01]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

I think this is the part Trump is going to focus on. Are people who are in the US illegally subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and if not, does that mean their children are subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

Children of diplomats born in the US aren't granted citizenship.

[Gelston]

I think this is the part Trump is going to focus on. Are people who are in the US illegally subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and if not, does that mean their children are subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

Children of diplomats born in the US aren't granted citizenship.

That means they are subject to the laws of that state, which is what jurisdiction means. Unless you think illegal aliens can freely commit murder or whatever with no recourse through the law?

[Tgo01]

That means they are subject to the laws of that state, which is what jurisdiction means. Unless you think illegal aliens can freely commit murder or whatever with no recourse through the law?

Or maybe the argument will be the child won't be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. I don't know exactly what they are going to argue in court, but I'm sure that is the line in the amendment they will be focusing on.

If they aren't going to argue that then yes, this executive order was just for show because that's the only part of the amendment that has any wiggle room.

Also if they are going to argue that the parents aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then I suppose the recourse would be to deport them and demand that their home country try them for the crime, although that would require their home countries be willing to accept them back in the first place, much less to then try them.

[Gelston]

Or maybe the argument will be the child won't be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. I don't know exactly what they are going to argue in court, but I'm sure that is the line in the amendment they will be focusing on.

If they aren't going to argue that then yes, this executive order was just for show because that's the only part of the amendment that has any wiggle room.

Also if they are going to argue that the parents aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then I suppose the recourse would be to deport them and demand that their home country try them for the crime, although that would require their home countries be willing to accept them back in the first place, much less to then try them.

If you are within the state, you're in that state's Jurisdiction, regardless of your immigration status. There is nothing to argue about there, that is literally what jurisdiction mean, the place that states or other entities' laws cover. It isn't a vague word.

[Tgo01]

In the case of diplomats the federal government has already shown they can declare certain people aren't subject to the jurisdiction of federal or state laws.

This is from Trump's order itself, apparently this is what they are going to argue in court:


"Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth."

So they aren't going to argue that the parents aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but that children born to people in the US illegally or legally but temporarily aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

[Gelston]

In the case of diplomats the federal government has already shown they can declare certain people aren't subject to the jurisdiction of federal or state laws.

This is from Trump's order itself, apparently this is what they are going to argue in court:



So they aren't going to argue that the parents aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but that children born to people in the US illegally or legally but temporarily aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Yes, they have diplomatic immunity. An illegal alien doesn't have diplomatic immunity and are do not fall under the jurisdiction of the states in which they are residing.

As for Trump's lines, that doesn't matter. Once that child is born, he is subject to the laws and protections of the Jurisdiction in which he inhabits.


But, I think most sane people agree this EO won't survive court. Even Trump doesn't believe it will.

[Suppressed Poet]

That means they are subject to the laws of that state, which is what jurisdiction means. Unless you think illegal aliens can freely commit murder or whatever with no recourse through the law?

I mean, if said murder happens on the NYC subway…maybe…?

[ClydeR]

So they aren't going to argue that the parents aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but that children born to people in the US illegally or legally but temporarily aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Yes, that is an exact and concise statement of what the Trump administration will argue.

Most, if not all, states have laws that require all parents, including those here illegally, to send their children to school. If they don't, the government can force the children to attend school. Both the parent and the child can face legal consequences for truancy. The children are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That is true regardless of whether or not the child is born in the U.S. Being born in the U.S., though, affects citizenship.

A diplomat, on the other hand, is a different matter. As we all know from Law and Order, diplomats and their children are not subject to U.S. criminal laws. If a diplomat or the diplomat's child commits a crime in the U.S., they will have to be prosecuted, if at all, in their home country.

Trump violated his oath -- on the same day he swore it -- by signing an executive order that he knew was unconstitutional. A normal person who did that would feel shame.

[Suppressed Poet]

Yes, that is an exact and concise statement of what the Trump administration will argue.

Most, if not all, states have laws that require all parents, including those here illegally, to send their children to school. If they don't, the government can force the children to attend school. Both the parent and the child can face legal consequences for truancy. The children are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That is true regardless of whether or not the child is born in the U.S. Being born in the U.S., though, affects citizenship.

A diplomat, on the other hand, is a different matter. As we all know from Law and Order, diplomats and their children are not subject to U.S. criminal laws. If a diplomat or the diplomat's child commits a crime in the U.S., they will have to be prosecuted, if at all, in their home country.

Trump violated his oath -- on the same day he swore it -- by signing an executive order that he knew was unconstitutional. A normal person who did that would feel shame.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ac/05/32/ac05329aa2968d881da074c31f45475b.gif

[Furryrat]

A normal person who did that would feel shame.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j556MWGVVqI

[Tgo01]

As for Trump's lines, that doesn't matter. Once that child is born, he is subject to the laws and protections of the Jurisdiction in which he inhabits.

We'll find out in court. Either way Trump can at least say he did everything he could do to end birthright citizenship. He has no power in changing amendments.


The children are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Yes and that is what Trump is challenging.


Trump violated his oath -- on the same day he swore it -- by signing an executive order that he knew was unconstitutional. A normal person who did that would feel shame.

lol

After 4 years of Biden you fuckers have no leg to stand on in saying someone else should feel shame for what they do or believe in.

[Gelston]

We'll find out in court. Either way Trump can at least say he did everything he could do to end birthright citizenship. He has no power in changing amendments.



And I think that is all he set out to do. "Can't say I didn't try!"

[Suppressed Poet]

On the topic of the 14th Amendment…

(And this is just me talking out of my ass here and playing devil’s advocate.)

One of the important components that SCOTUS considers when interpreting any constitutional amendment is the language and intent for the time that it was written. The 14th Amendment was one of many Reconstruction Acts passed after the Civil War. Clearly this amendment was chiefly written to apply to former American slaves. Did the authors and those that ratified the 14th Amendment intend for this to grant automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens (as in after it was written those that of their own free will crossed our border illegally and then had a child)? I’ll admit that I’m no legal scholar and my opinion means jack shit, but my suspicion would be no.

[~Rocktar~]

I mean, if said murder happens on the NYC subway…maybe…?

Cold, but funny.

I love all the constitutional scholars weighing in, I really do. Thing is, this has been a question for ages and heaps of extremely learned and wise constitutional scholars of standing have, through the years presented the same argument. I imagine that it has a more than 50/50 shot given the number of constitutional literalist/originalists on the court today. Of course, if it fails, are there enough states that are so pissed off with this crap that they would be willing to ratify an amendment? I don't know but I would imagine that number is closer to 30 than many Leftist would like to think, especially since it would not affect current citizens and children of citizens.

[Tgo01]

Did the authors and those that ratified the 14th Amendment intend for this to grant automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens (as in after it was written those that of their own free will crossed our border illegally and then had a child)? I’ll admit that I’m no legal scholar and my opinion means jack shit, but my suspicion would be no.

I would say no.

Clearly the intent of the amendment was to guarantee citizenship and equal rights to children born to Americans. Pretty sure the founders weren't expecting something like "Hey if you're 8.75 months pregnant and you have never stepped foot in the US in your entire life, then go ahead and book a cruise to the US and while you're in the US for 12 hours you give birth and BOOM! Your child is now an American citizen!"

There are actually some people who hate the way this works. I read about one person who was born in the US but his parents were Canadian and the dude had never stepped foot in the US since he was born and he never thought anything about it until he started working in Canada and the IRS started sending him letters saying he owed income tax.

[Gelston]

On the topic of the 14th Amendment…

(And this is just me talking out of my ass here and playing devil’s advocate.)

One of the important components that SCOTUS considers when interpreting any constitutional amendment is the language and intent for the time that it was written. The 14th Amendment was one of many Reconstruction Acts passed after the Civil War. Clearly this amendment was chiefly written to apply to former American slaves. Did the authors and those that ratified the 14th Amendment intend for this to grant automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens (as in after it was written those that of their own free will crossed our border illegally and then had a child)? I’ll admit that I’m no legal scholar and my opinion means jack shit, but my suspicion would be no.

If that is all they wanted it to cover, they would have been specific and named Freed Slaves, just as the specifically named Indians in the next section of the same Amendment concerning apportionment of Representatives. That they did not do this, means the purposely left it open ended.

[Tgo01]

are there enough states that are so pissed off with this crap that they would be willing to ratify an amendment?

No. I think I read somewhere that 22 states are already suing Trump over this executive order, and 38 are needed to ratify an amendment.

[Suppressed Poet]

If that is all they wanted it to cover, they would have been specific and named Freed Slaves, just as the specifically named Indians in the next section of the same Amendment concerning apportionment of Representatives. That they did not do this, means the purposely left it open ended.

Going back to the 2nd amendment because that is what I am much more familiar with, it clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If I were making your same argument, I could say that clearly means exactly what it says in plain text. We have a constitutional and historical interpretation that felons & dangerous criminals should be prohibited from possessing firearms. Did the authors purposely leave out except for felons & dangerous criminals or except for XYZ weapons; and does that mean you would interpret that our government has no authority to restrict access to any weapon or people bearing arms?

[Furryrat]

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.

It absolutely is in need of a modern interpretation.

[Suppressed Poet]

To add, I do agree that the order will be defeated in our courts and that a serious change to birthright citizenship will require a constitutional amendment. However, I don’t think it’s beyond challenge & completely preposterous to suggest that applying 14th Amendment constitutional protections to the children of illegal immigrants in 2025 was never the intent.

[~Rocktar~]

No. I think I read somewhere that 22 states are already suing Trump over this executive order, and 38 are needed to ratify an amendment.

Hummm, someone mentioned 3/5 ths, I didn't look it up. Still closer to the needed number than Leftists would like.

[Gelston]

Going back to the 2nd amendment because that is what I am much more familiar with, it clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If I were making your same argument, I could say that clearly means exactly what it says in plain text. We have a constitutional and historical interpretation that felons & dangerous criminals should be prohibited from possessing firearms. Did the authors purposely leave out except for felons & dangerous criminals or except for XYZ weapons; and does that mean you would interpret that our government has no authority to restrict access to any weapon or people bearing arms?

I've already made the argument further back that they left a lot of vagueness in that Amendment, and they were a lot more Specific throughout the 14th.

[Gelston]

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.

It absolutely is in need of a modern interpretation.

If you read the text of the Amendment, it is pretty specific in what it means. If they had meant for it to only effect freed slaves and their offspring, they would have put that in there. They were extremely specific talking about Indians further in the Amendment in later sections.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, that is an exact and concise statement of what the Trump administration will argue.

Most, if not all, states have laws that require all parents, including those here illegally, to send their children to school. If they don't, the government can force the children to attend school. Both the parent and the child can face legal consequences for truancy. The children are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That is true regardless of whether or not the child is born in the U.S. Being born in the U.S., though, affects citizenship.

A diplomat, on the other hand, is a different matter. As we all know from Law and Order, diplomats and their children are not subject to U.S. criminal laws. If a diplomat or the diplomat's child commits a crime in the U.S., they will have to be prosecuted, if at all, in their home country.

Trump violated his oath -- on the same day he swore it -- by signing an executive order that he knew was unconstitutional. A normal person who did that would feel shame.

OMG U SHUD IMPEACH HIM AGAIN!

You're so broken.

And I'm here for every moment.

[Suppressed Poet]

I've already made the argument further back that they left a lot of vagueness in that Amendment, and they were a lot more Specific throughout the 14th.

Disagree. There is no vagueness in the 2nd Amendment. You are choosing to ask questions or apply situations to the 2nd, but not treating the 14th with the same level of scrutiny. I get what you are saying with the 14th specifically calling out an exception with American Indians, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the every possible variable was considered.

Do you honestly believe that the authors of the 14th Amendment intentionally meant for this to apply to foreign nationals that illegally crossed into our border of their own free will with the intention of having their child born on our lands so that they may automatically become an American citizen?

[Gelston]

Disagree. There is no vagueness in the 2nd Amendment. You are choosing to ask questions or apply situations to the 2nd, but not treating the 14th with the same level of scrutiny. I get what you are saying with the 14th specifically calling out an exception with American Indians, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the every possible variable was considered.

Do you honestly believe that the authors of the 14th Amendment intentionally meant for this to apply to foreign nationals that illegally crossed into our border with the intention of having their child born on our lands so that they may automatically become an American citizen?

There is. If they had made the amendment say "The people have the right to bear arms commensurate with the technology level of the US military and this right shall not be infringed in anyway, whether through tax or license" then it wouldn't be vague. They left way too much shit open for interpretation as it is written. The 14th didn't.

[Suppressed Poet]

There is. If they had made the amendment say "The people have the right to bear arms commensurate with the technology level of the US military and this right shall not be infringed in anyway, whether through tax or license" then it wouldn't be vague. They left way too much shit open for interpretation as it is written. The 14th didn't.

I won’t disagree that added language would not help clarify, but that was not even a thought in 1791. The arms the people possessed were the same technology level as the military.

But I digress…respectfully, answer my question about if you believe the author(s) of the 14th amendment intended for those protections to apply to the children of foreign nationals that entered our country illegally of their own free will.

[Gelston]

I won’t disagree that added language would not help clarify, but that was not even a thought in 1791. The arms the people possessed were the same technology level as the military.

But I digress…respectfully, answer my question about if you believe the author(s) of the 14th amendment intended for those protections to apply to the children of foreign nationals that entered our country illegally of their own free will.

I believe I've already made it clear that they wrote the Amendment a specific way, yes.

[Methais]

Yes, that is an exact and concise statement of what the Trump administration will argue.

Most, if not all, states have laws that require all parents, including those here illegally, to send their children to school. If they don't, the government can force the children to attend school. Both the parent and the child can face legal consequences for truancy. The children are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That is true regardless of whether or not the child is born in the U.S. Being born in the U.S., though, affects citizenship.

A diplomat, on the other hand, is a different matter. As we all know from Law and Order, diplomats and their children are not subject to U.S. criminal laws. If a diplomat or the diplomat's child commits a crime in the U.S., they will have to be prosecuted, if at all, in their home country.

Trump violated his oath -- on the same day he swore it -- by signing an executive order that he knew was unconstitutional. A normal person who did that would feel shame.

You talking shit about how literally anyone else on the planet should feel shame is funny as fuck, because just look at you.




https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ac/05/32/ac05329aa2968d881da074c31f45475b.gif

https://media.tenor.com/AxdZIYDwQ_UAAAAj/smile-john-kreese.gif

[Suppressed Poet]

I believe I've already made it clear that they wrote the Amendment a specific way, yes.

Ok, fair enough. I’m skeptical that was their intent, but it’s hard to overcome it written as “all persons”.

Appreciate the dialogue & your insights. I’ll let this go now.

[~Rocktar~]

This was an interesting tidbit.

https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/474566605_948697687357324_5721017167704419244_n.jp g?stp=cp6_dst-jpg_p843x403_tt6&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=wJuSYhLYiOcQ7kNvgGs6ZCV&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&_nc_gid=AZcGLHvABGCgC-FrgVJl9ZE&oh=00_AYDjcU9zEV-3fM5PHzRBhA6LHJl-uVfPcoPw-t1WQOPC9g&oe=67989472

[Gelston]

This was an interesting tidbit.

https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/474566605_948697687357324_5721017167704419244_n.jp g?stp=cp6_dst-jpg_p843x403_tt6&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=wJuSYhLYiOcQ7kNvgGs6ZCV&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&_nc_gid=AZcGLHvABGCgC-FrgVJl9ZE&oh=00_AYDjcU9zEV-3fM5PHzRBhA6LHJl-uVfPcoPw-t1WQOPC9g&oe=67989472

Then he should have written the Amendment to include that.

[~Rocktar~]

Then he should have written the Amendment to include that.

English was different back then and people weren't nearly as fucking retarded.

[Gelston]

English was different back then and people weren't nearly as fucking retarded.

Funny, they were awfully specific and concise in the other sections about who was and wasn't included. Did they just decide to not be in the section concerning citizenship for no reason at all?

Or perhaps it is because that was his opinion, but he wasn't the only one authoring it. He might not have wanted that, but perhaps the majority did.

[Alfster]

He called them “presidential memorandum” which is simply EO by another name. When you include those, the number is much higher.

Your attempts to rewrite history for your narrative have failed.As you attempt to rewrite constitutional amendment based on what you feel the authors actually meant.

Both of you are heavily showing your ignorance.

Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk

[Tgo01]

As you attempt to rewrite constitutional amendment based on what you feel the authors actually meant.

Both of you are heavily showing your ignorance.

That's literally what the courts do.

[Suppressed Poet]

As you attempt to rewrite constitutional amendment based on what you feel the authors actually meant.

Both of you are heavily showing your ignorance.

Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk

The judicial branch has the final say to interpret the Constitution. Legal challenges happen on both sides of the political spectrum. SCOTUS believes it is important to consider the language and meaning at the time it was written, and that makes sense to me. My guess is Trump’s take on birth right citizenship and jurisdiction will not be interpreted favorably for him by SCOTUS, but it’s also not absurd to question if the 14th amendment (which was very obviously intended for emancipated slaves & their children) was ever intended to be applied to illegal aliens & their children in the way it does today.

Also…nice to hear from you again.