Blackhawk Down

[RiverRat1]

I don’t think he is interpreting that the same way you are. I think he is implying “anchor babies” have a right to US citizenship because they were born here.

I know. And I thought that was always the law... but???

I assumed he was saying Trump just jumped in and changed that long term law (or whatever you call that policy).

[monsterspike]

When your opponent is street fighting, at some point, you have to throw out the Marcus of Queensbury rules. At least temporarily.

Yep. "Dictator for only one day". and you all loved hearing that.

You will never have to vote again. He is the only aspiring dictator that actually announced his intentions, and it was celebrated. Remember the snake poem? He warned us.

[tvc184]

I will catch hell for this, but this was the quickest and easiest off the top of my head.

“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”.

The Supreme Court says no.

We can have an opinion that that is unconstitutional but the Supreme Court has never made such a ruling. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that Native Americans are not natural born birthright citizens.

It was adamant enough that the US Congress had to pass a federal law that made Native Americans citizens. It was not the Supreme Court and it was not a belief in the 14th amendment.

Oops!

[miket]

The Supreme Court says no.

We can have an opinion that that is unconstitutional but the Supreme Court has never made such a ruling. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that Native Americans are not natural born birthright citizens.

It was adamant enough that the US Congress had to pass a federal law that made Native Americans citizens. It was not the Supreme Court and it was not a belief in the 14th amendment.

Oops!

True, the supreme court is faulty, as all human institutions are.

Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education is an example

( getting way out of my interest/understanding with Supreme court stuff, I lost interest in it when I saw the justices partiality, RBG, really! )

[miket]

I don’t think he is interpreting that the same way you are. I think he is implying “anchor babies” have a right to US citizenship because they were born here.

I'm not saying whether I am for or against it. I'm saying it's not a president's place ( or right ) to ignore or make EOs changing it

[tvc184]

True, the supreme court is faulty, as all human institutions are.

Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education is an example

( getting way out of my interest/understanding with Supreme court stuff, I lost interest in it when I saw the justices partiality, RBG, really! )

That is all great but it is not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court agrees.

Right now Trump’s executive order is not unconstitutional. It may be next week but when asking for an example of an unconstitutional EO by Trump, that isn’t it.

[miket]

That is all great but it is not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court agrees.

Right now Trump’s executive order is not unconstitutional. It may be next week but when asking for an example of an unconstitutional EO by Trump, that isn’t it.

I realize your perspective is based on written law, case law etc. We all know that I wouldn't stand a chance arguing that with you based on your experience and my lack of it. And legally, of course you are right, the supreme courts purpose is to determine constitutionality. My example was to show that since we have two different rulings on basically the same issue, the supreme court can be wrong, and it's opinion can vary based on their ideological beliefs. We have all seen that happen repeatedly. Their decisions do determine whether an issue is constitutional legally. But they are not necessarily actually correct.

[tvc184]

I realize your perspective is based on written law, case law etc. We all know that I wouldn't stand a chance arguing that with you based on your experience and my lack of it. And legally, of course you are right, the supreme courts purpose is to determine constitutionality. My example was to show that since we have two different rulings on basically the same issue, the supreme court can be wrong, and it's opinion can vary based on their ideological beliefs. We have all seen that happen repeatedly. Their decisions do determine whether an issue is constitutional legally. But they are not necessarily actually correct.

👍🏼

I believe the Supreme Court will take the case and rule that being born on American soil makes you an American.

It will come down to the definition of “jurisdiction” and the two part requirement to be a citizen. . The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t say merely born in the United States. It adds AND is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

In the case of the Native American, they ruled that being a member of an Indian nation did not make him subject to US jurisdiction. So a Native American was not a native born American.

Then there was the case of the two Chinese nationals who had a child but they were legally in the country. By being in the country lawfully, apparently the Trump administration (I am sure he has no clue) believes there is some wiggle room of a person here illegally not fitting the case of Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court in that csse also denied birthright citizenship to the children of foreign diplomats since they most definitely are not under US jurisdiction. Because they have diplomatic immunity, they are only subject to their country’s laws.

So being a birthright citizenship is not unlimited, but to not br is extremely limited. I think the case of Wong Kim Ark will be the basis for the US Supreme Court to overturn the Trump EO.

It will be appeal to a district then the circuit court, who will rule in favor of birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court will simply reject the case and let the lower court stand meaning it will finally be settled.

It just isn’t there yet.

[100%TtId]

Then we’ll hold a constitutional convention or convention of states and settle the matter.

[tvc184]

Then we’ll hold a constitutional convention or convention of states and settle the matter.

A constitutional convention sounds great but I don’t think it will ever happen.