DiscussMormonism.com

This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright- ... 2ea82.html

"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL7PSlUuWPs

Mr. Anti-Constitution doing his thing again, betraying his oath of office.

Yeah, good luck with that.

I'm trying to remember, are excessive EOs and large expansions of Presidential powers good or bad?

With the new Supreme Court Justices, there is a chance that Trump could override the 14th Amendment on this issue. This could even pave the way for granting citizenship to Russia, allowing full participation in the 2020 elections.

Water Dog wrote:"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight."

Pretty sure that Trump’s gonna have to drop a few dozen pounds before he can squeeze into that Batman costume for your cosplay fantasy.

Kevin Graham wrote:Mr. Anti-Constitution doing his thing again, betraying his oath of office.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Xenophon wrote:I'm trying to remember, are excessive EOs and large expansions of Presidential powers good or bad?

I guess that depends on how one defines excessive, doesn't it ^^^^

It will be a glorious court battle. The point, obviously, is simply to force Supreme Court to answer the question. A very strong chess move. Long past time we had this debate and saw it through to the end. I figure Supreme Court' response is something along the lines, "President has plenary powers, so of course the executive order is legitimate. But, actually, you don't need an act of congress, or an executive order, because there never was a birth right to citizenship in the first place. Have a nice day."

A questions for our legal eagles.

Since the meaning of the clause was somewhat fleshed out within the debate when the amendment was being discussed, combined with Supreme Court decision 120-ish years ago, is there even a fart’s chance in a hurricane that this could get past the first district court it lands in?

When the original public meaning of a legal text is unambiguous, you have to adopt that meaning unless it leads to absurd consequences. Here, the consequences may well be irrational and self-defeating: We prohibit unauthorized entry while offering an inducement, giving citizenship to the children of those who violate the law. So if Congress were to deny citizenship to children of illegal aliens, the Supreme Court might not declare that law unconstitutional.

https://www.cato.org/blog/birthright-ci ... y-required

Two additional arguments referred to by Ilya Shapiro.

For

https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/u ... erican.pdf

Against

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... _id=905570

Doctor Steuss wrote:A questions for our legal eagles.

Since the meaning of the clause was somewhat fleshed out within the debate when the amendment was being discussed, combined with Supreme Court decision 120-ish years ago, is there even a fart’s chance in a hurricane that this could get past the first district court it lands in?

No, mainly because it is contrary to current law enacted by Congress.

It's a campaign stunt for the midterms.

Res Ipsa wrote:No, mainly because it is contrary to current law enacted by Congress.

It's a campaign stunt for the midterms.

This was all I took it as too. As an executive order it might not even make it to Supreme Court anyways, couldn't the next administration (assuming it is different) just override it, not unlike many of Obama's orders? This seems like a very short term play.