Trump intends to amend US Constitution via EO.

Watch
TSR George
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago
#3
You have to wonder where he gets his advice from, don't you?
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(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; 2 years ago
1
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Smacks of a mid-term PR stunt, hopefully.
Last edited by RogerOxon; 2 years ago
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#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.
That figures. He behaves like a spoilt teenage child.
1
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(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:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(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.
0
reply
username4301878
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#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.
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:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by Doonesbury)
That doesn't understand umbrellas... (or, more likely, is too lazy/entitled to even bother).
Fixed it for you.
Last edited by RogerOxon; 2 years ago
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#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
JMR2021_
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
It would just be challenged and defeated in the courts. He just wants this attention before the midterm elections.
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
*cough Putin cough*
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
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:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(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: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
"red indian" is a bit 1930s to me lol, how about "native american"?
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Fixed it for you.
It's broked - although I'm sure it was very amusing :yy:
1
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
wasnt you, someone else you were talking to, sorry just throwing it in there
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#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.
There are checks and balances to the President's power. This would never make it past the Supreme Court.
Ah...
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by JMR2018)
It would just be challenged and defeated in the courts.
Indeed. Good job the Supreme Court doesn't contain a majority of Republican lickspittles.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (406)
56.23%
I don't have everything I need (316)
43.77%

Watched Threads

View All