Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

WTF · 10-31-2018, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Did Melania's parents immigrate legally? Are they naturalized citizens?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/n...-citizens.html

LexusLover · 10-31-2018, 08:22 AM

Air

Land

Sea

Yssup Rider · 10-31-2018, 08:23 AM

So a day has gone by and the consensus among legal scholars — even those on the right — is that Trump cannot amend the FConstitution by Executive Order.

As stated by previous posters, this is just another ploy to energize the low info voter a week before what could be a disastrous midterm election for him following another week of Trump’s glaring failure to serve the people of this nation.

In other words .., just more bullshit from the King.

Yssup Rider · 10-31-2018, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Air

Land

Sea

It appears you and Ellen both forgot to weigh in on the topic of this thread, which is Trump’s announcement that he was going to amend the 14th Amendment with an EO.

You need to be posting that in the “Trump is going to deploy thousands of troops to the border to defend us from certain invasion by Guatemala” thread.

Otherwise...

Austin Ellen · 10-31-2018, 09:06 AM

Such Victimhoodness. Tsk,tsk. Trump needs to do the E.O.
to keep America safe.

Don't worry - they will thank him later!

grean · 10-31-2018, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Oh, but SEN Howard's full statement is in the Congressional Record documenting the 39th Congress' intent (see @ here). Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are "originalists", and "intent", to them, is every bit as important as the actual text of the Amendment. The Congressional Record says children born to aliens -- children born as subjects of foreign governments -- are NOT citizens. Trump's EO will put this issue back before the Supreme Court where it will be adjudicated by "originalists". Brennan will be overturned.

What about the other laws makers intent who had the current text passed? They had enough votes to have the other text omitted.

Certainly there were people in Congress at that time who did not like the idea of giving citizenship to slaves. Should the supreme court consider their intent as well?

LexusLover · 10-31-2018, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grean

What about the other laws makers intent who had the current text passed? They had enough votes to have the other text omitted.

Certainly there were people in Congress at that time who did not like the idea of giving citizenship to slaves. Should the supreme court consider their intent as well?

Strict constructionists do.

Do you believe the framing of the 14th amendment was for the purpose of legitimizing the offspring of Hispanic people sneaking into this country or en masse invading the border from the South?

Quote:

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments to this day, the amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourte...s_Constitution

I B Hankering · 10-31-2018, 09:44 AM

It's disingenuous to argue that Trump is "amending" the Constitution with an EO. He isn't. Trump is masterminding a scenario wherein SCOTUS will correct its current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment -- without legislation; without another amendment. And the lib-retards will howl!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

making a new amendment isn't need. Exactly! EO is the right way to do this.

what the EO can do is clarify what it means. No. The EO will put this back in front of SCOTUS. SCOTUS will clarify its meaning. one way Trump can do this is copy verbatim Howard's statement in the EO and outline who is under jurisdiction there of under U.S.

the humiliating hang wringing by Ryan was totally un-necessary.

Graham says he will follow up with legislation to support Trump's EO. Not needed. Brennan will be overturned by SCOTUS.

the legislation may not be even necessary. It boils down to how the EO is written. The new ruling will be based on SEN Howard's and the 39th Congress' "intent"; not Trump's EO. Trump's EO is just a tactic to bring the matter back to SCOTUS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grean

Read James Madison.

The definition of who can be a citizen has changed since James Madison wrote the Constitution. Native Americans and slaves were not and could not be citizens in Madison's day. And the 14th Amendment was all about constitutionally changing Madison's definition of citizen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grean

What about the other laws makers intent who had the current text passed? They had enough votes to have the other text omitted.

Certainly there were people in Congress at that time who did not like the idea of giving citizenship to slaves. Should the supreme court consider their intent as well?

The "other lawmakers" were the 39th Congress who were led by SEN Howard in voting for the 14th Amendment according to the "intent" he laid before them, in the Senate, in open debate documented in the Congressional Record. Those lawmakers -- the 39th Congress -- overwhelmingly voted in support of Howard's "intent". Those who felt otherwise were outvoted, and the Constitution was changed over their objections in accordance with the policies and procedures prescribed in the Constitution.

grean · 10-31-2018, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Strict constructionists do.

Do you believe the framing of the 14th amendment was for the purpose of legitimizing the offspring of Hispanic people sneaking into this country or en masse invading the border from the South?

Of course not. Controlling who get's into the country is absolutely necessary and right.

A strict contructionsist would read the ammendment as written and vote any EO unconstitutional. As written, the ammendment says if you're born on us soil, you are a citizen.

Ammend it. But until then any EO on citizenship isnt worth the ink.

I B Hankering · 10-31-2018, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grean

Of course not. Controlling who get's into the country is absolutely necessary and right.

A strict contructionsist would read the ammendment as written and vote any EO unconstitutional. As written, the ammendment says if you're born on us soil, you are a citizen.

Ammend it. But until then any EO on citizenship isnt worth the ink.

Trump isn't "amending" the Constitution or ruling in an unconstitutional manner. He is challenging SCOTUS to revisit its earlier mistaken interpretation. See @ 83.

grean · 10-31-2018, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Trump isn't "amending" the Constitution or ruling in an unconstitutional manner. He is challenging SCOTUS to revisit its earlier mistaken interpretation. See @ 83.

I understand. I am saying he will lose.

I B Hankering · 10-31-2018, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grean

I understand. I am saying he will lose.

I'll bet a Kavanaugh and a Gorsuch that he doesn't. Trump's EO becomes an irrelevant footnote when the 14th Amendment is interpreted in accordance with the "intent" of the 39th Congress.

grean · 10-31-2018, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's disingenuous to argue that Trump is "amending" the Constitution with an EO. He isn't. Trump is masterminding a scenario wherein SCOTUS will correct its current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment -- without legislation; without another amendment. And the lib-retards will howl!!!!

The definition of who can be a citizen has changed since James Madison wrote the Constitution. Native Americans and slaves were not and could not be citizens in Madison's day. And the 14th Amendment was all about constitutionally changing Madison's definition of citizen.

The "other lawmakers" were the 39th Congress who were led by SEN Howard in voting for the 14th Amendment according to the "intent" he laid before them, in the Senate, in open debate documented in the Congressional Record. Those lawmakers -- the 39th Congress -- overwhelmingly voted in support of Howard's "intent". Those who felt otherwise were outvoted, and the Constitution was changed over their objections in accordance with the policies and procedures prescribed in the Constitution.

Just like the various drafts of 2A, it was what was written in the draft that made it into the Constitution that matters. Got to apply the same rules to 14 as 2 or 4 or any other ammendment.

grean · 10-31-2018, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'll bet a Kavanaugh and a Gorsuch that he doesn't. Trump's EO becomes an irrelevant footnote when the 14th Amendment is interpreted in accordance with the "intent" of the 39th Congress.

Well when that happens, I'll say you were right.

I B Hankering · 10-31-2018, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grean

Just like the various drafts of 2A, it was what was written in the draft that made it into the Constitution that matters. Got to apply the same rules to 14 as 2 or 4 or any other ammendment.

Excellent example! Scalia's ruling in Heller was entirely based on "intent", just as a new ruling (stemming from the inevitable, reactionary, lib-retard challenge to Trump's EO) on the 14th Amendment will be based on "intent".