Day One

[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/...xecutive-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.

[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://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69606315