Go to first unread
- although I'm sure it was very amusing 
just throwing it in there
Back
to top
Trump intends to amend US Constitution via EO.
Watch
Announcements
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.
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
Report
#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
Report
#4
(Original post by Good bloke)
You have to wonder where he gets his advice from, don't you?
You have to wonder where he gets his advice from, don't you?
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; 2 years ago
1
reply
Report
#6
(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.
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.
1
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by Good bloke)
That figures. He behaves like a spoilt teenage child.
That figures. He behaves like a spoilt teenage child.
2
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by Good bloke)
That figures. He behaves like a spoilt teenage child.
That figures. He behaves like a spoilt teenage child.
0
reply
Report
#9
(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.
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.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by Doonesbury)
That doesn't understandumbrellas... (or, more likely, is too lazy/entitled to even bother).
That doesn't understand
Last edited by RogerOxon; 2 years ago
0
reply
Report
#11
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
Report
#12
It would just be challenged and defeated in the courts. He just wants this attention before the midterm elections.
0
reply
Report
#14
Am I right in thinking that whoever gets in in 2020, assuming he loses, can just reverse the EO?
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by Just my opinion)
assuming he loses
assuming he loses
0
reply
Report
#17
1
reply
Report
#19
(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.
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.
Ah...
0
reply
Report
#20
(Original post by JMR2018)
It would just be challenged and defeated in the courts.
It would just be challenged and defeated in the courts.
1
reply
X
Quick Reply
