Trump intends to amend US Constitution via EO. Watch

NYU℠
Badges: 20
#1
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#1
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/p...er/1816666002/

Trump wants to ‘amend,’ via executive order, the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, by limiting the meaning of the ‘Citizenship Clause.’

As it currently stands, the 14th states: “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 concept of jus soli (“right of the soil;” birthright citizenship), a holdover from English common law, has controlled in US jurisprudence and has been affirmed in Elk v. Wilkins, US v. Wong Kim Ark and Pylyer v. Doe (not on point, but persuasive).

It is not constitutionally within the President’s power to limit the meaning of a Constitutional provision.
2
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 months ago
#2
Surely it would be a constitutional catastrophe if a President was allowed to change the constitution by EO. This particular EO would just be the start of him wanting to rewrite the entire constitution.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 months ago
#3
You have to wonder where he gets his advice from, don't you?
0
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#4
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#4
(Original post by Doonesbury)
Surely it would be a constitutional catastrophe if a President was allowed to change the constitution by EO. This particular EO would just be the start of him wanting to rewrite the entire constitution.
The Executive is allowed to interpret the law, and act accordingly. However, where such interpretation would be contrary to standing constitutional law, it’s generally considered to be outside Executive power to act in such a way. Here, jus soli is the law of the land and Congress has made no attempt to statutorily define or limit the meaning of the 14th. Assuming he did sign just such an EO, it would immediately be brought to Court, where the Courts would have the final say on its Constitutionality.

So, where the law is vague, the Executive has the power to issue EOs to clarify — which, of course, can be subjected to judicial review. But here, the actual clause of the Constitution is not vague. The common law doctrine of jus soli is not vague. And the cases all seem quite clear on the point. Thus, the problematic part of this EO is its overreach. Thus, my use of the more evocative word ‘amend’ as opposed to ‘interpret.’ Because there doesn’t seem to be much room for interpreting it as it stands.
Last edited by NYU℠; 8 months ago
1
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 months ago
#5
(Original post by Good bloke)
You have to wonder where he gets his advice from, don't you?
I'm reading Bob Woodward's book - he basically ignores all his professional/experienced advisors, including the Whitehouse legal council, and jumps at any, er, leftfield ideas from outsiders.

Bob Woodward quotes President Donald Trump: “I don’t have any good lawyers. I have terrible lawyers … I’ve got a bunch of lawyers who are not aggressive, who are weak, who don’t have my best interests in mind, who aren’t loyal. It’s just a disaster. I can’t find a good lawyer.”
Last edited by Doones; 8 months ago
1
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 8 months ago
#6
(Original post by NYU2012)
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/p...er/1816666002/

Trump wants to ‘amend,’ via executive order, the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, by limiting the meaning of the ‘Citizenship Clause.’

As it currently stands, the 14th states: “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 concept of jus soli (“right of the soil;” birthright citizenship), a holdover from English common law, has controlled in US jurisprudence and has been affirmed in Elk v. Wilkins, US v. Wong Kim Ark and Pylyer v. Doe (not on point, but persuasive).

It is not constitutionally within the President’s power to limit the meaning of a Constitutional provision.
Smacks of a mid-term PR stunt, hopefully.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by RogerOxon; 8 months ago
0
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#7
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#7
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Smacks of a mid-term PR stunt, hopefully.
Undoubtedly. But I think the standing concerning issue is what that means for democratic norms in the US. Namely, that the President can use such ‘anti-democratic’ methods as ‘politics.’
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 8 months ago
#8
(Original post by Doonesbury)
I'm reading Bob Woodward's book - he basically ignores all his professional/experienced advisors, including the Whitehouse legal council, and jumps at any, er, leftfield ideas from outsiders.
That figures. He behaves like a spoilt teenage child.
1
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 8 months ago
#9
(Original post by Good bloke)
That figures. He behaves like a spoilt teenage child.
That doesn't understand umbrellas... (or, more likely, is too lazy/entitled to even bother).
2
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 8 months ago
#10
(Original post by Good bloke)
That figures. He behaves like a spoilt teenage child.
That's not fair on most teenagers. He's in the terrible twos, IMO.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
username4301878
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report 8 months ago
#11
(Original post by Doonesbury)
I'm reading Bob Woodward's book - he basically ignores all his professional/experienced advisors, including the Whitehouse legal council, and jumps at any, er, leftfield ideas from outsiders.
Ignoring the fact that that book is fanfiction, good. If he did listen to his neocon advisers, the US would be sponsoring yet another trillion dollar mass casualty event in the Mid East.
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 8 months ago
#12
(Original post by Doonesbury)
That doesn't understand umbrellas... (or, more likely, is too lazy/entitled to even bother).
Fixed it for you.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by RogerOxon; 8 months ago
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 8 months ago
#13
(Original post by NYU2012)
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/p...er/1816666002/

Trump wants to ‘amend,’ via executive order, the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, by limiting the meaning of the ‘Citizenship Clause.’

As it currently stands, the 14th states: “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 concept of jus soli (“right of the soil;” birthright citizenship), a holdover from English common law, has controlled in US jurisprudence and has been affirmed in Elk v. Wilkins, US v. Wong Kim Ark and Pylyer v. Doe (not on point, but persuasive).

It is not constitutionally within the President’s power to limit the meaning of a Constitutional provision.
Hang on a minute. Elk v Wilkins is not authority for what you suggest. Indeed it is authority for Trump's position. Elk was a Red Indian born in the USA but was held not to be an American citizen.
0
reply
JMR2019.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 8 months ago
#14
It would just be challenged and defeated in the courts. He just wants this attention before the midterm elections.
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 8 months ago
#15
*cough Putin cough*
0
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#16
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#16
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Hang on a minute. Elk v Wilkins is not authority for what you suggest. Indeed it is authority for Trump's position. Elk was a Red Indian born in the USA but was held not to be an American citizen.
I would disagree — the reason he was held to not be a citizen was because he was born within sovereign Indian nation land. He was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but rather, to his tribe.

The issue of being born on Indian land was amended by statute.
Last edited by NYU℠; 8 months ago
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 8 months ago
#17
Am I right in thinking that whoever gets in in 2020, assuming he loses, can just reverse the EO?
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 8 months ago
#18
(Original post by Just my opinion)
assuming he loses
I wouldn't do that if I were you. The last few decades have demonstrated a strong bias towards keeping the devil the American public knows.
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 8 months ago
#19
(Original post by NYU2012)
I would disagree — the reason he was held to not be a citizen was because he was born within sovereign Indian nation land. He was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but rather, to his tribe.

The issue of being born on Indian land was amended by statute.
"red indian" is a bit 1930s to me lol, how about "native american"?
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 8 months ago
#20
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Fixed it for you.
It's broked - although I'm sure it was very amusing :yy:
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are your favourite crisps?

Kettle Chips (7)
12.73%
McCoys Salt and Vinegar (4)
7.27%
McCoys Flame Grilled Steak (2)
3.64%
Walkers Prawn Cockail (9)
16.36%
Monster Munch (6)
10.91%
Pringles (11)
20%
Walkers Oven Baked Crisps (4)
7.27%
Walkers Beef and Onion (1)
1.82%
Thai Sweet Chili Sensations (11)
20%

Watched Threads

View All