• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump announces intent to end Birthright Citizenship

Shalamar said:
This is what gets me. Conservatives were screaming that President Obama should be impeached because they imagined that he was, or was going to ignore the constitution.

President Trump actually comes out to say that he wants to disregard the constitution, and conservatives either ignore, or applaud it!
Click to expand...
I would like to see an example of a conservative that decried Obama ignoring the constitution and his now supporting trump's doing so in this case?
I won't be surprised if its Lindsey Graham or Steve King
Its unfortunately common on the internet to assume that positions held by any representative of a polticial group are held by all, allowing the chorus of hypocrisy. But just because One republican supports Trump in this matter, doesn't mean they all do. With the exception of graham, I'm not aware of any legislators supporting trump on this.

BobTheCoward said:
He said no such thing. He is stating he is enforcing it as written.
Click to expand...
As noted, Trump seems to think his executive order would be constitutional, he's wrong about that.

Bob001 said:
He doesn't get to interpret the Constitution. The 14th Amendment itself and subsequent court decisions have determined that people born here are citizens. Period.
Click to expand...
No, he does, then if others disagree with him, there will be lawsuits and the SCOTUS will eventually determine if is interpretation was accurate. Its actually in the job responsibility to interpret the constitution. Theoretically, he should veto laws he deems unconstitutional and refuse to enforce those existing laws he thinks are unconstitutional, inwhich case there would be a lawsuit and the SCOTUS would then decide if his interpretation was accurate.
 
Am I correct that executive orders pertain only to directions issued to members of the executive branch of the federal government?

If someone applies for a passport, they have to submit a birth certificate or their old passport. If the birth certificate does not suffice to prove citizenship, then the State Department will need proof of at least one parent's citizenship or permanent residency.

But then, how does that parent prove citizenship or permanent residency?

So, a whole bunch of folks are going to have to be grandfathered in, obviously. Perhaps as of the date Trump signs the order, birth certificates will not be sufficient to prove citizenship. Besides international travel, what other executive departments concern themselves with proof of citizenship? Homeland Security, obviously. What else? Will states still recognize newborns as residents of the state?
 
ahhell said:
I would like to see an example of a conservative that decried Obama ignoring the constitution and his now supporting trump's doing so in this case?
I won't be surprised if its Lindsey Graham or Steve King
Its unfortunately common on the internet to assume that positions held by any representative of a polticial group are held by all, allowing the chorus of hypocrisy. But just because One republican supports Trump in this matter, doesn't mean they all do. With the exception of graham, I'm not aware of any legislators supporting trump on this.

As noted, Trump seems to think his executive order would be constitutional, he's wrong about that.


No, he does, then if others disagree with him, there will be lawsuits and the SCOTUS will eventually determine if is interpretation was accurate. Its actually in the job responsibility to interpret the constitution. Theoretically, he should veto laws he deems unconstitutional and refuse to enforce those existing laws he thinks are unconstitutional, inwhich case there would be a lawsuit and the SCOTUS would then decide if his interpretation was accurate.
Click to expand...

And the other two branches are not required to accept a supreme court ruling.
 
BobTheCoward said:
He said no such thing. He is stating he is enforcing it as written.
Click to expand...

That's not an accurate characterization. He sent people looking for some way to get around what it plainly says and how it has always been interpreted, so he could do what he wanted to do, and he's saying he thinks they found one. Your characterization implies an intellectual integrity that is completely missing in this man.
 
WilliamSeger said:
That's not an accurate characterization. He sent people looking for some way to get around what it plainly says and how it has always been interpreted, so he could do what he wanted to do, and he's saying he thinks they found one. Your characterization implies an intellectual integrity that is completely missing in this man.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think he listened uncritically to a few people like Stephen miller and the breakdown was in his poor managerial and hiring practices, and lack of intellectual curiosity. I certainly don't think he went looking for an answer.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is judicial review, not supremacy. We are not disputing that federal courts are there demesne.

As an aside, the president won that one.
Click to expand...

It also established that the Constitution is the "law of the land." If a president is breaking the law, he should be impeached. I'm not interested in going down your semantic "supremacy" rabbit hole.
 
WilliamSeger said:
It also established that the Constitution is the "law of the land." If a president is breaking the law, he should be impeached. I'm not interested in going down your semantic "supremacy" rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

It isn't my supremacy rabbit hole. None of the arguments I have made here are my creation.
 
LSSBB said:
The court directly intervened with an executive order.
Click to expand...

Of course they can. I think there is some confusion on what review versus supremacy is. Review recognizes that they have the Constitutional power to issue any decision they think is appropriate.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The constitution doesn't specify judicial supremacy. The deference exercised by the other branches is not a requirement.
Click to expand...

"Judicial supremacy" is the idea that the Supreme Court is superior to the other two branches and can impose its own will on policy. No, clearly and obviously, it can only use its power of judicial review to say whether or not a law or governmental action is Constitutional, not force the other two branches to do anything. But if the Supreme Court says a President's actions are violating the Constitution, it's Congress' constitutional duty to impeach him. Interpreting and upholding the Constitution is a duty of all branches. Once again, you're trying to drag the discussion somewhere unproductive.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
"Judicial supremacy" is the idea that the Supreme Court is superior to the other two branches and can impose its own will on policy. No, clearly and obviously, it can only use its power of judicial review to say whether or not a law is Constitutional, not force the other two branches to do anything. But if the Supreme Court says a presidents actions are violating the Constitution, it's Congress' constitutional duty to impeach him. Interpreting and upholding the Constitution is a duty of all branches. Once again, you're trying to drag the discussion somewhere unproductive.
Click to expand...

If Congress thinks the court is wrong, they have a duty to ignore it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If Congress thinks the court is wrong, they have a duty to ignore it.
Click to expand...

What a silly statement. If that were the case, then the Republican controlled Congress would pass a law outlawing abortion and ignore Roe vs Wade. On the flip side, a Democratic controlled Congress would pass a law concerning campaign funding and ignore Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
 
Stacyhs said:
What a silly statement. If that were the case, then the Republican controlled Congress would pass a law outlawing abortion and ignore Roe vs Wade. On the flip side, a Democratic controlled Congress would pass a law concerning campaign funding and ignore Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Click to expand...

They don't because they can't enforce it. The goal of such a law would be to convict people for violating it. But it would get thrown out when they make it to court.

The president could enforce it, but they probably don't want to spend time having prosecutors prepare charges that will be immediately thrown out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom