https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the- meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
On 1/21/2025 10:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-
meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
It's not so much to amend the Constitution as to interpret the phrase
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment. The
central question is whether a child born to parents who are not citizens
or legal permanent residents at the time of birth is a citizen. Clearly
this will end up being settled by the Supreme Court, and it's hard to
guess how they will rule. We can probably guess at the views of most of
the justices, but Roberts, Barrett and, to a lesser extent, Kavanaugh
have been hard to pigeonhole, so it could really go either way.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 08:47:47 -0800, Rick wrote:the-
On 1/21/2025 10:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-
citizensmeaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
It's not so much to amend the Constitution as to interpret the phrase
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment. The
central question is whether a child born to parents who are not
Clearlyor legal permanent residents at the time of birth is a citizen.
ofthis will end up being settled by the Supreme Court, and it's hard to
guess how they will rule. We can probably guess at the views of most
the justices, but Roberts, Barrett and, to a lesser extent, Kavanaugh
have been hard to pigeonhole, so it could really go either way.
But with newly minted presidential immunity, surely POTUS can just flip
the bird at SCOTUS. Anything the constitution makes illegal, he can
just make legal.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 08:47:47 -0800, Rick wrote:
On 1/21/2025 10:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-
meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
It's not so much to amend the Constitution as to interpret the phrase
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment. The
central question is whether a child born to parents who are not citizens
or legal permanent residents at the time of birth is a citizen. Clearly
this will end up being settled by the Supreme Court, and it's hard to
guess how they will rule. We can probably guess at the views of most of
the justices, but Roberts, Barrett and, to a lesser extent, Kavanaugh
have been hard to pigeonhole, so it could really go either way.
But with newly minted presidential immunity, surely POTUS can just flip
the bird at SCOTUS. Anything the constitution makes illegal, he can just
make legal.
On 1/21/2025 1:21 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 08:47:47 -0800, Rick wrote:
On 1/21/2025 10:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-t
he- meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
It's not so much to amend the Constitution as to interpret the
phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th
amendment. The central question is whether a child born to parents
who are not citizens or legal permanent residents at the time of
birth is a citizen. Clearly this will end up being settled by the
Supreme Court, and it's hard to guess how they will rule. We can
probably guess at the views of most of the justices, but Roberts,
Barrett and, to a lesser extent, Kavanaugh have been hard to
pigeonhole, so it could really go either way.
But with newly minted presidential immunity, surely POTUS can just
flip the bird at SCOTUS. Anything the constitution makes illegal, he
can just make legal.
The question here was whether the President can unilaterally change
the Constitution through an executive action. He can certainly try,
but the courts and particularly the Supreme Court have the final say.
And if you are suggesting that he might try to defy the ruling of the
high court, that will not happen. The public won't accept it, his
advisors won't accept it, and the Congress will surely not accept it.
Yes, he might can avoid prosecution for presidential actions, but he
would undoubtedly be impeached and removed from office if he ever
tried to defy a Supreme Court ruling. He's not that stupid, and it's
not going to happen.
Rick <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
On 1/21/2025 1:21 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
The question here was whether the President can unilaterally change
the Constitution through an executive action. He can certainly try,
but the courts and particularly the Supreme Court have the final say.
And if you are suggesting that he might try to defy the ruling of the
high court, that will not happen. The public won't accept it, his
advisors won't accept it, and the Congress will surely not accept it.
Yes, he might can avoid prosecution for presidential actions, but he
would undoubtedly be impeached and removed from office if he ever
tried to defy a Supreme Court ruling. He's not that stupid, and it's
not going to happen.
I agree that he can't get away with things simply by his fiat, if the
rest of the government isn't behind him. But I disagree about
impeachment. There aren't enough Republicans in the Senate to vote for impeachment, no matter what he might do. No matter what he might do.
Rick <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
On 1/21/2025 1:21 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 08:47:47 -0800, Rick wrote:
On 1/21/2025 10:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-t >>>>> he- meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
It's not so much to amend the Constitution as to interpret the
phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th
amendment. The central question is whether a child born to parents
who are not citizens or legal permanent residents at the time of
birth is a citizen. Clearly this will end up being settled by the
Supreme Court, and it's hard to guess how they will rule. We can
probably guess at the views of most of the justices, but Roberts,
Barrett and, to a lesser extent, Kavanaugh have been hard to
pigeonhole, so it could really go either way.
But with newly minted presidential immunity, surely POTUS can just
flip the bird at SCOTUS. Anything the constitution makes illegal, he
can just make legal.
The question here was whether the President can unilaterally change
the Constitution through an executive action. He can certainly try,
but the courts and particularly the Supreme Court have the final say.
And if you are suggesting that he might try to defy the ruling of the
high court, that will not happen. The public won't accept it, his
advisors won't accept it, and the Congress will surely not accept it.
Yes, he might can avoid prosecution for presidential actions, but he
would undoubtedly be impeached and removed from office if he ever
tried to defy a Supreme Court ruling. He's not that stupid, and it's
not going to happen.
I agree that he can't get away with things simply by his fiat, if the
rest of the government isn't behind him. But I disagree about
impeachment. There aren't enough Republicans in the Senate to vote for impeachment, no matter what he might do. No matter what he might do.
On 1/21/2025 9:53 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:for
Rick <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On 1/21/2025 1:21 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
The question here was whether the President can unilaterally change
the Constitution through an executive action. He can certainly try,
but the courts and particularly the Supreme Court have the final say.
And if you are suggesting that he might try to defy the ruling of the
high court, that will not happen. The public won't accept it, his
advisors won't accept it, and the Congress will surely not accept it.
Yes, he might can avoid prosecution for presidential actions, but he
would undoubtedly be impeached and removed from office if he ever
tried to defy a Supreme Court ruling. He's not that stupid, and it's
not going to happen.
I agree that he can't get away with things simply by his fiat, if the
rest of the government isn't behind him. But I disagree about
impeachment. There aren't enough Republicans in the Senate to vote
impeachment, no matter what he might do. No matter what he might do.
Its amazing people want impeach Trump but Biden issued a statement
declaing the ERA is part of the Constitution. Hold him to the same
standard and impeach Biden
Roy <[email protected]> wrote in news:vmq1h7$q7vf$[email protected]:
On 1/21/2025 9:53 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:for
Rick <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On 1/21/2025 1:21 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
The question here was whether the President can unilaterally change
the Constitution through an executive action. He can certainly try,
but the courts and particularly the Supreme Court have the final say.
And if you are suggesting that he might try to defy the ruling of the
high court, that will not happen. The public won't accept it, his
advisors won't accept it, and the Congress will surely not accept it.
Yes, he might can avoid prosecution for presidential actions, but he
would undoubtedly be impeached and removed from office if he ever
tried to defy a Supreme Court ruling. He's not that stupid, and it's
not going to happen.
I agree that he can't get away with things simply by his fiat, if the
rest of the government isn't behind him. But I disagree about
impeachment. There aren't enough Republicans in the Senate to vote
impeachment, no matter what he might do. No matter what he might do.
Its amazing people want impeach Trump but Biden issued a statement
declaing the ERA is part of the Constitution. Hold him to the same
standard and impeach Biden
I was surprised when he did that. As I recall the final state required
to ratify the ERA did that, but after the time period provided in the amendment for the requisite number of states to do so. So I imagine
that's what he was referring to.
Seems the new POTUS has issued an EO to amend the 14th amendment.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the- >meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
Seems the new POTUS has issued an EO to amend the 14th amendment.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the- meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
Seems the new POTUS has issued an EO to amend the 14th amendment.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the- meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
The question here was whether the President can unilaterally change the Constitution through an executive action. He can certainly try, but the courts and particularly the Supreme Court have the final say. And if
you are suggesting that he might try to defy the ruling of the high
court, that will not happen. The public won't accept it, his advisors
won't accept it, and the Congress will surely not accept it. Yes, he
might can avoid prosecution for presidential actions, but he would undoubtedly be impeached and removed from office if he ever tried to
defy a Supreme Court ruling. He's not that stupid, and it's not going
to happen.
Jethro_uk wrote:
Seems the new POTUS has issued an EO to amend the 14th amendment.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-
meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
As some on this thread suggested, this has been struck down by a federal court.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 15:06:44 -0800 (PST), Rick wrote:
The question here was whether the President can unilaterally change the
Constitution through an executive action. He can certainly try, but the
courts and particularly the Supreme Court have the final say. And if
you are suggesting that he might try to defy the ruling of the high
court, that will not happen. The public won't accept it, his advisors
won't accept it, and the Congress will surely not accept it. Yes, he
might can avoid prosecution for presidential actions, but he would
undoubtedly be impeached and removed from office if he ever tried to
defy a Supreme Court ruling. He's not that stupid, and it's not going
to happen.
He _is_ that stupid, but that's beside the point. If
Senate Repblicans weren't willing to convict and remove
him when he actually led an insurrection, they
certainly won't do it over what looks like a minor
technical point except to people who are directly
affected.
Things moving fast
< https://azmirror.com/2025/01/24/reports-of-navajo-people-being-detained-in-immigration-sweeps-sparks-concern-from-tribal-leaders/ >
According to Jethro_uk <[email protected]>:
Things moving fast
< https://azmirror.com/2025/01/24/reports-of-navajo-people-being-detained-in-immigration-sweeps-sparks-concern-from-tribal-leaders/ >
All that shows is that some ICE employees are racist jerks. Congress gave the Navahos and every other tribe US citizenship in 1924. There is nothing ambiguous or questionable about whether they're citizens.
Returning to the original question, I don't think many of the people
who want to rewrite the 14th amendment have any idea what a nightmare
it would be. To figure out who's entitled to birthright citizenship,
that means they have to check EVERYONE's parents' citizenship. Could
you prove your parents were US citizens? I suppose I might be able to
find my father's old army discharge but maybe not.
A problem arises with ICE in that can the person being detained prove
their citizenship? Many of the raids are due to I-9 audits showing
problems for employees such as phony SSNS or missing paperwork.
I have been told that a VA Card doesn't prove you are a veteran and all veterans are not citizens. A driver's license with the RealID star is probably a good way citizenship. I have my passport card in my wallet anyway.
Roy <[email protected]> wrote in news:vn6d4n$6655$[email protected]:
A problem arises with ICE in that can the person being detained prove
their citizenship? Many of the raids are due to I-9 audits showing
problems for employees such as phony SSNS or missing paperwork.
I have been told that a VA Card doesn't prove you are a veteran and all
veterans are not citizens. A driver's license with the RealID star is
probably a good way citizenship. I have my passport card in my wallet
anyway.
But you're forgetting that they want to deprive everyone of citizenship if their parents weren't citizens. And their parents weren't citizens if
their parents weren't. You may have to go back several generations to determine whether you, whose parents and grandparents may have all been
born in the US, are really a citizen under their plan.
Its amazing people want impeach Trump but Biden issued a statement
declaing the ERA is part of the Constitution. Hold him to the same
standard and impeach Biden
Its amazing people want impeach Trump but Biden issued a statementI was surprised when he did that. As I recall the final state required
declaing the ERA is part of the Constitution. Hold him to the same
standard and impeach Biden
to ratify the ERA did that, but after the time period provided in the amendment for the requisite number of states to do so. So I imagine
that's what he was referring to.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have beenratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the
He _is_ that stupid, but that's beside the point. If
Senate Repblicans weren't willing to convict and remove
him when he actually led an insurrection, they
certainly won't do it over what looks like a minor
technical point except to people who are directly
affected.
Whether he actually "led" an insurrection is a matter of opinion and
there are arguments on both sides of that issue. Actually defying a
Supreme Court order would be pretty clear cut and not just a "minor
technical point". I don't think it will come to that, but we shall see.
On 1/22/2025 9:45 AM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Its amazing people want impeach Trump but Biden issued a statementI was surprised when he did that. As I recall the final state required
declaing the ERA is part of the Constitution. Hold him to the same
standard and impeach Biden
to ratify the ERA did that, but after the time period provided in the
amendment for the requisite number of states to do so. So I imagine
that's what he was referring to.
That's been an interesting legal question up to now. The 18th amendment (prohibition) included a clause that limited ratification to 7 years:
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have beenratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from
the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
The 20th, 21st, and 22nd also included that clause.
The 19th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th amendments did not
include such a clause. (But I'm guessing that the clause was in the resolution that submitted those amendments to the states)
All of the above except the 27th preceded the ERA, so it was (then) not unreasonable for Congress to continue the habit of putting the
ratification deadline in the resolution instead of the amendment itself.
The logic was "why should we clutter up the Constitution with these
deadline clauses, which effectively become inoperative when the
amendment is ratified.
OTOH, those 7 amendments were fairly non-controversial, with the
exception of the 19th, which garnered the required 3/4 of the states -
passed by one vote in the last state.
I think the ERA made it clear that this is a bad idea, but the 27th
amendment was an exception - it was originally proposed along with the
first 10, and would have become the 12th amendment except that it wasn't ratified by enough states.(*) So of course it did not
(*) There was another proposed amendment that would have specified the
size of Congress, but that one has not been ratified. But it could be,
if enough state legislatures decide that it's a good idea.
Getting back to the ERA, I think the intent was clear even if Congress
failed to include the deadline in the amendment itself, and Biden was
*way* out of line in deciding to ratify it on his own initiative.
NOT that I'm opposed. If Congress were to propose the ERA anew, I would
favor ratification. This even though I have had some qualms about the
wording - the us of "rights" without a definition strikes me as the sort
of thing that can come back and bit you on the ass when you least expect
it.
Phew! Long post.
On 1/25/2025 9:02 PM, Rick wrote:
He _is_ that stupid, but that's beside the point. If
Senate Repblicans weren't willing to convict and remove
him when he actually led an insurrection, they
certainly won't do it over what looks like a minor
technical point except to people who are directly
affected.
Whether he actually "led" an insurrection is a matter of opinion and
there are arguments on both sides of that issue. Actually defying a
Supreme Court order would be pretty clear cut and not just a "minor
technical point". I don't think it will come to that, but we shall see.
As a private citizen, I think that he probably intended for his
followers to go to Congress and somehow force them to choose him over
Biden or at least to delay the count so that the election would be sent
to the HR where the vote is by states and Trump would have had a huge majority.
But if I were on a jury and presented with the facts as I know them, I
don't think I could vote to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Yes, he made some very inflammatory statements before and at his "Save America" rally.
"Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" (before)
and
"If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country
anymore" (at the rally)
But that's ambiguous. "be wild" could just mean, "gonna be a rip-roaring speech". And "fight like hell" could mean protests, lawsuits, and other perfectly legitimate actions.
Now if it ever came to trial, maybe additional facts will come to light
that would support a conviction. But I doubt that, especially since the
Biden administration did not bring charges although they had 4 years to
do it in.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 170:50:24 |
| Calls: | 12,097 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,855 |