• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can the president with an executive order override the constitution. (1 Viewer)

The question becomes will SCOTUS rule it unconstitutional and even if it does, what stops President Trump from following President Jacksons lead from the Worcester decision?

Answer NOTHING….
We are not living in the 19th century.

If Traitor Trump were to ignore a SCOTUS opinion affirming birthright citizenship depriving native born persons of all of their rights under our Constitution, the backlash from the majority Americans would be swift, demanding/forcing their representatives to impeach and remove him from office.
 
From memory, birth right citizenship wasn't always absolute. A relatively new interpretation, last 50 years or so. Also that it is absolute is not accepted by all legal scholars. It is a topic that needs scrutiny IMO

Your memory is false - and the only "legal scolars" who don't accept it are conmen and liars.

This country has based citizenship on jus soli since day one, for white people. The 14th extended that to everyone.
 
In northern Maine the closest hospital was often in Canada. Are those Mainers US or Canadian?

Both. They are granted U.S. citizenship on the basis of their parentage, and Canadian citizenship by birth.

I actually know more than one person born in exactly this situation.
 
Precisely. Our system of governance assumes compliance with SCOTUS. It was not designed for a situation where a President simply can decide to ignore SCOTUS.
Our system of governance also includes the way/means of removing any president that doesn’t abide the Constitution he swears an oath to.

There may be some small (by comparison) SCOTUS opinions Traitor Trump could partially or entirely ignore, without consequence to himself.

Denying the rights and protections of citizenship guaranteed by our Constitution and repeatedly affirmed by our highest court would most definitely not be one of them.
 
No, the EO is to eliminate natural birth citizens so that they can be deported. SCOTUS has no say in the matter. ICE reports to Donald, not SCOTUS. State Department reports to Donald, not SCOTUS. He will expect both to report to him and comply with him, not SCOTUS. Anyone who fails to do so will be fired and replaced with another who is loyal to Donald.
Sure, SCOTUS has no say in matters pertaining to the constitution. Go with that.
 
Sure, SCOTUS has no say in matters pertaining to the constitution. Go with that.
They have plenty of say, but they have absolutely no do. They quite literally talk the talk while being prohibited from walking the walking. When it comes to matters pertaining to the Constitution, SCOTUS as the full power to write the opinions of 9 people on a piece of paper. That’s it.

Nowhere is there a mechanism to require Donald to adhere to those opinions. If he decides that he just doesn’t wanna, SCOTUS can clutch pearls but otherwise are impotent to stop him.
 
Our system of governance also includes the way/means of removing any president that doesn’t abide the Constitution he swears an oath to.

There may be some small (by comparison) SCOTUS opinions Traitor Trump could partially or entirely ignore, without consequence to himself.

Denying the rights and protections of citizenship guaranteed by our Constitution and repeatedly affirmed by our highest court would most definitely not be one of them.
That mechanism has been taken off the table thanks to a Mike Johnson who has sworn an oath of loyalty to Donald Trump. Donald could shoot their children in their beds and MAGA Congress critters wouldn’t dare vote to impeach him.
 

Can the president with an executive order override the constitution.

Only President Donald Trump can do this
 
Why do you support a president issuing a blatantly unconstitutional EO?

1898 is way more than 50 years.

Their opinion is meaningless. This has been settled by SCOTUS already.

The constitution allows them to.

Why shouldn’t she?

Do the French have a constitutional amendment specifically saying that child is a citizen, like we do?

I don’t know Canadian law, but if at least 1 parent is a US citizen, the child is a US citizen regardless of where they are born.
It will be an interesting case to follow. Trump is not afraid of championing America First. Bring on the legal challenge.
Are foreign Nationals subject to our jurisdiction or are they citizens of their country of origin?
 
That mechanism has been taken off the table thanks to a Mike Johnson who has sworn an oath of loyalty to Donald Trump. Donald could shoot their children in their beds and MAGA Congress critters wouldn’t dare vote to impeach him.
Your emotion based opinion ignores every elected official’s primary motivation of doing whatever necessary to keep their office.

Johnson is no exception.
 
It will be an interesting case to follow. Trump is not afraid of championing America First. Bring on the legal challenge.
Traitor Trump is no “champion”. Never has been, and never will be.
Are foreign Nationals subject to our jurisdiction or are they citizens of their country of origin?
U.S.Constitution 101 - All foreign nationals on American soil, minus those with diplomatic status, are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
 
Traitor Trump is no “champion”. Never has been, and never will be.

U.S.Constitution 101 - All foreign nationals on American soil, minus those with diplomatic status, are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
We will see. Doubt those ratifying the 14th ammendment intended anchor babies.
 
We will see. Doubt those ratifying the 14th ammendment intended anchor babies.
And your point would be? I doubt those ratifying the 2nd meant universal access to AR15's.
 
We will see. Doubt those ratifying the 14th ammendment intended anchor babies.
There are a great many things that lawmakers from every generation didn’t, or couldn’t predict. It’s why the founders included the mechanism to alter the foundational document.

As for “anchor babies”, they would not be the only persons affected by simply doing away with the repeatedly affirmed constitutional right.

Try to think more from an objective viewpoint than a bigoted one.
 
We are not living in the 19th century.

If Traitor Trump were to ignore a SCOTUS opinion affirming birthright citizenship depriving native born persons of all of their rights under our Constitution, the backlash from the majority Americans would be swift, demanding/forcing their representatives to impeach and remove him from office.

Sorry, but I do not share such optimism.

Too many voters demonstrated that the high price of eggs was worth supporting an autocrat.

That said, I hope you are correct.
 
Sorry, but I do not share such optimism.

Too many voters demonstrated that the high price of eggs was worth supporting an autocrat.

That said, I hope you are correct.
I’m more of a realist than an optimist.

Even understanding (best as a rational and fair minded person can) Traitor Trump’s grip on a large minority of Americans fears/prejudices, stripping birthright citizenship in defiance of SCOTUS’ affirmation of the right would be a bridge too far for the majority, who would then demand their representatives, principally concerned with their own careers, stop the unconstitutional action.
 
And your point would be? I doubt those ratifying the 2nd meant universal access to AR15's.
They absolutely did. The founders had just overthrown their previous government. The 2cnd ammendment was a check against a return of tyranny. A well regulated militia requires well armed and equipped able bodied citizens. Rocks, pitch forks and bare feet were not well regulated.
 
They absolutely did. The founders had just overthrown their previous government. The 2cnd ammendment was a check against a return of tyranny. A well regulated militia requires well armed and equipped able bodied citizens. Rocks, pitch forks and bare feet were not well regulated.
......and a 16 year old with mental issues is not a well regulated militia
 
We will see. Doubt those ratifying the 14th ammendment intended anchor babies.
There are a whole lot of things in the US Constitution that the ratifiers would be aghast at, imo.

..or how they have been interpreted…..
 
Birthright citizenship exists in many countries. It isn't just a slavery thing.
Sorry, "but all the other kids are doing it" isn't a valid argument.
 
Sorry, "but all the other kids are doing it" isn't a valid argument.
Didn't say it was....and for the record I don’t support it for non landed immigrants. I also don't support multi generational citizenship for those who choose to live in their ancestral homelands instead of Canada.
 
I wonder which other amendments you would limit due to how they were “intended”.
Probably not many, if any. The 13th, 14th and 15th are called "Civil War Amendments" for a reason. Slaves were brought in involuntarily and had no choice where to birth their children. Illegally entering the country with the goal of creating an "anchor baby" is quite different.
 
Probably not many, if any. The 13th, 14th and 15th are called "Civil War Amendments" for a reason. Slaves were brought in involuntarily and had no choice where to birth their children. Illegally entering the country with the goal of creating an "anchor baby" is quite different.
A difference which the writers of the amendment would have made clear if it was important to them.
 
It will be an interesting case to follow. Trump is not afraid of championing America First. Bring on the legal challenge.
The constitution is America first. Shitting all over it, as Trump proposes, is not. The constitution states explicitly, that anyone born on US soil is a citizen, with the sole exception being the children of diplomats.
Are foreign Nationals subject to our jurisdiction or are they citizens of their country of origin?
Every single person on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction with the sole exception being diplomats with granted immunity. The Supreme Court has already told you this. Plyler v doe.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom