• 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)

Sorry, "but all the other kids are doing it" isn't a valid argument.
Correct. The explicit plain English of the 14th is though. As well as the Supreme Court having told you explicitly anyone born on US soil is a US citizen except those of diplomats with immunity.
 
SCOTUS has to approve it.
The EO would certainly be one way to get SCOTUS to look at the issue and, perhaps, reevaluate the Ark decision. Ark was based on a person born here and living here for 20+ years. The court then said that constitutes "citizenship". I would suggest that decision was overreach and should have conferred "lawful permanent residence" status but not necessarily citizenship.
 
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.
Nope. Which is why they don’t mention slaves, but all persons.
 
The EO would certainly be one way to get SCOTUS to look at the issue and, perhaps, reevaluate the Ark decision. Ark was based on a person born here and living here for 20+ years. The court then said that constitutes "citizenship". I would suggest that decision was overreach and should have conferred "lawful permanent residence" status but not necessarily citizenship.
Show me in the 14th amendment where it says “lawful permanent residence”.
 
A difference which the writers of the amendment would have made clear if it was important to them.
Probably not in 1865 when half of the North American continent was unclaimed.
 
I just read that one of the executive orders that Trump will release tomorrow will end birth right citizenship. Now birth right citizenship is written into the constitution. So, can the president just override the constitution and take away birth right citizenship? I know that the right wing hates birth right citizenship, but is this in anyway legal and would even this SCOTUS approve such a move?

Based on the July 2024 SCOTUS decision, the president is immune from any prosecution for acts performed for duties "in the commission of his office." So IMO he could call out whatever resources and enforce any laws/interpretations he wanted to enact his decision to end birthright citizenship. And then he would have established an end to birthright citizenship and could not be held responsible for anything he required to enact that. Knowing this, what would stop him? (Supposedly lower federal courts could decide but he still has the ultimate authority to ignore their decisions as well.)

An example of an act "not in the commission of his office" would be if his mistress was found dead in his bed and he killed her. He would not be immune from charges for that murder.
 
Last edited:
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.

Wow. After this last election, how can you possible believe that?

Not to mention the July 2024 SCOTUS decision. Post 107
 
Show me in the 14th amendment where it says “lawful permanent residence”.
There was no such thing at that point. That didn’t become a thing until 1917 or so.
 
The EO would certainly be one way to get SCOTUS to look at the issue and, perhaps, reevaluate the Ark decision. Ark was based on a person born here and living here for 20+ years. The court then said that constitutes "citizenship". I would suggest that decision was overreach and should have conferred "lawful permanent residence" status but not necessarily citizenship.
I won't be discussing the constitution with you again.
 
There was no such thing at that point. That didn’t become a thing until 1917 or so.
Right, which is why it’s not a requirement. The 14th explicitly states anyone born in Us soil is a citizen except children of diplomats because they have immunity and aren’t subject to US jurisdiction.
 
Wow. After this last election, how can you possible believe that?
The election results aren’t a reflection of Americans view of birthright citizenship.
IMG_8694.jpegIMG_8695.jpeg

Despite the increasingly louder shouting by many on the right, maintaining birthright citizenship has a growing majority of support.

Of course, Americans opinions aren’t relevant to whether SCOTUS upholds any existing precedent.
Not to mention the July 2024 SCOTUS decision. Post 107
Thanks for the offered opinion, but I’ll stick with objective reality.

SCOTUS isn’t Traitor Trump’s puppet.
 
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.

Wow. After this last election, how can you possible believe that?

Not to mention the July 2024 SCOTUS decision. Post 107

The election results aren’t a reflection of Americans view of birthright citizenship.


Despite the increasingly louder shouting by many on the right, maintaining birthright citizenship has a growing majority of support.

Of course, Americans opinions aren’t relevant to whether SCOTUS upholds any existing precedent.

Thanks for the offered opinion, but I’ll stick with objective reality.

SCOTUS isn’t Traitor Trump’s puppet.

No, they're a reflection of how many were lured in, no matter what reality is, to vote for him...and that is a majority. That's what I meant...they followed him hook, line, and sinker and I have no idea why you believe they'd rise up to support a bunch of people, many of whom are brown, and the product of their biggest fear..."brown hoards coming across the borders!"? Why do you believe that?

And you didnt address the SCOTUS decision with anything more than 'na huh.' SCOTUS made their decision...no need for them to step in again...DonOld is free to roam within the framework of that immunity decision. Right?
 
President Trump can do any goddamned thing he wants.
 
No, they're a reflection of how many were lured in, no matter what reality is, to vote for him...and that is a majority. That's what I meant...they followed him hook, line, and sinker and I have no idea why you believe they'd rise up to support a bunch of people, many of whom are brown, and the product of their biggest fear..."brown hoards coming across the borders!"? Why do you believe that?
You exaggerate the size of Traitor Trump’s following (In case you’re not aware, less than 1/3 of eligible voters cast ballots for Traitor Trump) and fail to acknowledge the fact that a growing majority of Americans support maintaining the precedent of birthright citizenship.
And you didnt address the SCOTUS decision with anything more than 'na huh.'
I noted my disagreement with your view of SCOTUS’ presidential immunity opinion.

The proof that SCOTUS isn’t Traitor Trump’s puppet is clear in the various and numerous instances when the high court has ruled against his wishes/interests.
SCOTUS made their decision...no need for them to step in again...DonOld is free to roam within the framework of that immunity decision. Right?
Asserting that SCOTUS would refuse to review any writ of certiorari appealing an EO ending birthright citizenship?
 
You exaggerate the size of Traitor Trump’s following (In case you’re not aware, less than 1/3 of eligible voters cast ballots for Traitor Trump) and fail to acknowledge the fact that a growing majority of Americans support maintaining the precedent of birthright citizenship.

Doesnt matter...that's millions and the majority. And I addressed how most of those people 'follow' their master. Can you support the bold?

Even so, it doesnt mean that the majority of Americans...who voted for DonOld would rise up and revolt over mostly "brown people" and a primary reason they voted for him...removing as many of them as possible.

I noted my disagreement with your view of SCOTUS’ presidential immunity opinion.

You said you didnt agree, that's it.

The proof that SCOTUS isn’t Traitor Trump’s puppet is clear in the various and numerous instances when the high court has ruled against his wishes/interests.

Again...too late...that decision re: immunity was made in July. Basically, it means he can do anything considered performed as a duty of his office...and break any laws and use any coercion he needs to without legal consequences.

Asserting that SCOTUS would refuse to review any writ of certiorari appealing an EO ending birthright citizenship?

Never did so. What I do assert is that DonOld could just ignore it for the reasons I gave above. Please directly refute these, not just "disagree." I would be more than happy to be wrong.
 
I just read that one of the executive orders that Trump will release tomorrow will end birth right citizenship. Now birth right citizenship is written into the constitution. So, can the president just override the constitution and take away birth right citizenship? I know that the right wing hates birth right citizenship, but is this in anyway legal and would even this SCOTUS approve such a move?
If the rule of law still applied, no he would not be able to do so.

But it doesn't.
 
It's a ploy to get birth right citizenship defined. It was intended and designed to deal with children born by slaves at the end ov the Civil War. No rational thinker can support the "drop it, it's a citizen" crap the looney left is praying for.
There is no clause limiting it to children of slaves.
 
There is no clause limiting it to children of slaves.
In 1865 there didn't need to be. There ARE laws about illegal entry and the fruits of violating the law.
 
In 1865 there didn't need to be. There ARE laws about illegal entry and the fruits of violating the law.
So what? The language is very clear.

Apply pretzel logic to it all you want. If you end birthright citizenship without an amendment, you're just shitting on the constitution.
 
So what? The language is very clear.

Apply pretzel logic to it all you want. If you end birthright citizenship without an amendment, you're just shitting on the constitution.
Ironic you accuse ME of pretzel logic.
 
Doesnt matter...that's millions and the majority.
A small majority of eligible voters that cast ballots for Traitor Trump, and less than 1/3rd of all those eligible to vote.
And I addressed how most of those people 'follow' their master. Can you support the bold?
… majority of Americans support maintaining the precedent of birthright citizenship.
I already have.
Even so, it doesnt mean that the majority of Americans...who voted for DonOld would rise up and revolt over mostly "brown people" and a primary reason they voted for him...removing as many of them as possible.
Again, less than 1/3rd of eligible voters cast a ballot for Traitor Trump, besting Harris by just 2.28M.

Even if every person that voted for Traitor Trump supports rounding up/deporting all illegal migrants, that still leaves a much larger portion of Americans (18+) that affirmed their support of birthright citizenship in the 12/24 Quinnipiac poll I posted earlier.
You said you didnt agree, that's it.
I said more than that, both times.
Thanks for the offered opinion, but I’ll stick with objective reality.

SCOTUS isn’t Traitor Trump’s puppet.
And;
I noted my disagreement with your view of SCOTUS’ presidential immunity opinion.

The proof that SCOTUS isn’t Traitor Trump’s puppet is clear in the various and numerous instances when the high court has ruled against his wishes/interests.
Again...too late...that decision re: immunity was made in July. Basically, it means he can do anything considered performed as a duty of his office...and break any laws and use any coercion he needs to without legal consequences.
Again, your grossly exaggerated opinion is noted.
Never did so.
Yeah, you did.
SCOTUS made their decision...no need for them to step in again...DonOld is free to roam within the framework of that immunity decision. Right?
SCOTUS refusing to respond to a writ of certiorari is, by definition, not stepping in.
What I do assert is that DonOld could just ignore it for the reasons I gave above. Please directly refute these, not just "disagree." I would be more than happy to be wrong.
Be happy then, because you are wrong.

SCOTUS’ history of multiple rulings against Traitor Trump is proof positive.

I am every bit as anti-Traitor Trump as you are, and I fully recognize/understand the lean of the high court (along with lower courts that have clearly shown bias in his various cases), but refuse to allow my profound disdain for the orange shit stain to cloud my ability to remain clear eyed/objective.
 
Last edited:
A small majority of eligible voters that cast ballots for Traitor Trump, and less than 1/3rd of all those eligible to vote.

Millions...all on his agenda, not against it.

I already have.

Again, less than 1/3rd of eligible voters cast a ballot for Traitor Trump, besting Harris by just 2.28M.

So? Still doesnt mean they'll rise in revolt.

Even if every person that voted for Traitor Trump supports rounding up/deporting all illegal migrants, that still leaves a much larger portion of Americans (18+) that affirmed their support of birthright citizenship in the 12/24 Quinnipiac poll I posted earlier.

Still doesnt mean they'll rise in revolt. Do you know that that means? And you ignore that millions of those support his agenda and believe that 'relieving the "brown" problem' will help solve their economic problems. You have not sourced any claim as requested that a significant majority are against birthright citizenship, much less will rise up in revolt.

I said more than that, both times.

No, dont lie...we can both read it. You provided no counterargument that I could respond to...you just disagreed.

And;

Again, your grossly exaggerated opinion is noted.

And yet you dont refute it...it's right there and yet, you only say "na huh." Let's see you refute it directly. Post 107.

Yeah, you did.

Quote it.

SCOTUS refusing to respond to a writ of certiorari is, by definition, not stepping in.

As I keep posting, that does not mean DonOld wont still act on his EO. And provide/coerce resources into enforcing it. He's immune from any legal consequences.

Be happy then, because you are wrong.

YOu'll have to prove that, and you have not. Nowhere, not even close.

SCOTUS’ history of multiple rulings against Traitor Trump is proof positive.

SCOTUS ruled already in July. He has that immunity. So now, he can ignore their new rulings at will, as long as he's performing in an official duty of his office. If you'd directly respond to my post 107, you might understand this better.
 
Millions...all on his agenda, not against it.



So? Still doesnt mean they'll rise in revolt.



Still doesnt mean they'll rise in revolt. Do you know that that means? And you ignore that millions of those support his agenda and believe that 'relieving the "brown" problem' will help solve their economic problems. You have not sourced any claim as requested that a significant majority are against birthright citizenship, much less will rise up in revolt.



No, dont lie...we can both read it. You provided no counterargument that I could respond to...you just disagreed.



And yet you dont refute it...it's right there and yet, you only say "na huh." Let's see you refute it directly. Post 107.



Quote it.



As I keep posting, that does not mean DonOld wont still act on his EO. And provide/coerce resources into enforcing it. He's immune from any legal consequences.



YOu'll have to prove that, and you have not. Nowhere, not even close.



SCOTUS ruled already in July. He has that immunity. So now, he can ignore their new rulings at will, as long as he's performing in an official duty of his office. If you'd directly respond to my post 107, you might understand this better.
You are welcome to continue believing in alternative facts.

I’ll stick with reality.

Good night.
 
You are welcome to continue believing in alternative facts.

I’ll stick with reality.

Good night.

You have not proven anything I wrote is inaccurate so your post is silly. It's a discussion and you have not debated anything I wrote beyond, "no it's not." And so I'm fine leaving it where it stands.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom