Trump intends to amend US Constitution via EO.

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

Volunteer Section Leader

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

Volunteer Section Leader

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

Volunteer Section Leader

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.

Debate & Current Affairs Helper

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

Volunteer Section Leader

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

Quick Reply

Oops, nobody has posted
in the last few hours.

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

Today on TSR

Poll

What are your favourite crisps?

Watched Threads

Oops, nobody has posted
in the last few hours.

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

TSR Support Team

Get Started

Using TSR

Info

TSR Group

Connect with TSR

Trump intends to amend US Constitution via EO. Watch

Not what you're looking for? Try…

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Oops, nobody is replying to posts.

See more of what you like onThe Student Room

Today on TSR

Poll

What are your favourite crisps?

Watched Threads

Spotlight

Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Oops, nobody is replying to posts.

See more of what you like onThe Student Room

TSR Support Team

Get Started

Using TSR

Info

TSR Group

Connect with TSR

Oops, nobody has posted
in the last few hours.

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

Oops, nobody has posted
in the last few hours.

See more of what you like on
The Student Room