Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship

[_schreech]

1 - do you even know what "a.k.a. means?
2 - your incely whining and tantrum throwing is hilarious. Maybe your totally not fake and totally super hot wife can comfort you in your impotent hysterics.

[_Water Dog]

1 - do you even know what "a.k.a. means?
2 - your incely whining and tantrum throwing is hilarious. Maybe your totally not fake and totally super hot wife can comfort you in your impotent hysterics.

Question for the group: how is this any different than mentalgymnast?

[_schreech]

Beyond that it's kind of a waste of time because y'all are miserable people to interact with.

Yea, unlike the crap sites you frequent to get confirmation of the stupid things you choose to believe like the shallow, tier 3 trumpologist that you are are, we actually call you on the nonsense you choose to believe and post. Funny how that works. Its hilarious that being wrong makes you so angry. Its like you are completely incapable of admitting you are wrong, sort of like your incompetent, ignorant cheeto overlord. Its kind of pathetic that so much of your self-worth is tied up in being right on a small Mormon themed site filled with anonymous posters who are, obviously, much smarter than you...

[_schreech]

Question for the group: how is this any different than mentalgymnast?

Question for the group, has water dog always been this insecure and dogmatic?

[_EAllusion]

This is very much in kind with your arguments on the climate change thread.

What's your point? This is even more subjective than climate change. You can't prove human caused warming, nor can you prove, objectively, the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. It's a subjective debate, entirely dependent upon the legal approach. Beyond that it's kind of a waste of time because y'all are miserable people to interact with.

My point is that you try to reduce a dispute between a position so bad that modestly informed layman should be able to understand why and a near complete academic consensus into a he-said/she said where onlookers have to agree that the fringe position is respectable merely because of the credentials of the people arguing it. You link or reference bad arguments and when they are patiently debunked, you retreat into claim that authority is beyond our ken.

You can do this with any kooky position. HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Holocaust Denial. Astrology. Book of Mormon is historical. There's always a few well-credentialed people defending them. Politics in particular can get people off the ranch. You take it further by making the arbiter of intellectual legitimacy an institution decided by distribution of power rather than intellectual merit.

[_EAllusion]

Julian Sanchez makes a point here that is not the first thing to come to mind, but is serious:

There’s no serious question whether the Constitution requires birthright citizenship, but Trump has surrounded himself with cranks, apparently including someone at OLC who thinks he can revoke it by executive order. Which makes me anxiously curious what other crank theories they’re peddling. It’s not that the courts won’t (eventually) bat down this sort of stuff, but it’s easy to imagine a lot of chaos being created in the interim by a president whose advisors are telling him settled constitutional rules don’t apply. Maybe most worrying, not all executive orders are public. We have no idea what he might be directing the IC to do based on some John Yoo vision of Article II powers.

[_canpakes]

Even one voice in such a direction would show it's a credible argument. Whoever that justice is, he or she sure knows a hell of a lot more than any of us.

But probably not as much as the other eight, in that case.

[_Res Ipsa]

This thread is the typical lefty retardation that reigns around here. Nobody here is a legal scholar. Nobody here is qualified to assert any kind of certain outcome. There are very smart and very credible people on both sides of this debate. I linked two of them on page one. I have no idea how this plays out, but I do think it will go to Supreme Court. RI says that's impossible, because he's such a smarty pants or something, I guess we'll see.

No, RI says it's not going to happen because he can read, respects the Constitution, and understands that Supreme Court Justices do too.

The smart and credible person that you linked in support of your position didn't support your position. He never addressed changing birthright citizenship by Executive Order. He only discussed an act of Congress. He didn't discuss the case law -- just threw out an argument that he thought had a chance of sticking to the wall. And he concluded that trying to revoke birthright citizenship, even through an act of congress, was a waste of time:

So really, let’s debate some serious policy issues. It’s just not classy or luxurious to keep pressing this birthright-citizenship stuff.

The other expert you linked to (who I think is now a federal judge), wrote a law review article that exhaustively reviewed the history and case law. He concluded that Congress could not constitutionally revoke birthright citizenship.

I have no doubt various courts will knock it down, just as they did the travel ban. That is the whole purpose of this, to force the debate. The idea that this is merely a midterm stunt is quite idiotic, in my opinion. You people suck at politics. Did anybody actually click the link and watch the Axios interview? Unless the Axios journalist is in on this, it seemed very clear that Trump was surprised. This journalist scooped something that Trump had planned for later. In case you hadn't noticed, the voting is already underway. I think it's over 25% or something around there have ALREADY VOTED. Yeah, sorry, I'm not seeing a midterm stunt. This is for real.

What I saw was Trump doing his regular thing -- pretending he's the smartest guy in the room and taking credit for being the only person to have thought he could repeal birthright citizenship by executive order. i think he's desperate to turn the publicity away from the bombs and the shootings, and he latched onto this as a distraction.

Y'all can laugh and ridicule all you want, that's what you do, but you're clowns. Over and over you are proven to be clowns. You did this with all the previous EOs, and they went to Supreme Court, and Trump won. It's amazing to me how immensely egotistical you can be. Trump is the President of the United States. Who are you? You really think he doesn't maybe have more than a few legal minds at his disposal? You ____ Mormon discussion board nitwits think you're so smart. In the end, you may turn out to have been correct on whatever the final decision is. But it won't be because you had the first damn clue what you were talking about... it will be because there were only two possible outcomes and by dumb luck you guessed right. Or, you got your talking points from someone who was right.

All what previous EOs? You mean the travel ban. Version 1 never made it to the Supreme Court. The administration pulled it. The Supreme Court issued a stay for much of Version 2, but never ruled on the merits. The administration pulled it and issued Version 3. That one passed muster on a 5-4 vote. I was very critical of the Version 1, but thought Version 2 would probably pass Supreme Court review. I was surprised when the Supreme Court issued a stay. So, yeah I was wrong on Version 2 because I thought it was legal.

But the two situations aren't comparable at all. Trump was issuing the travel ban under an Act of Congress that gives him a tremendous amount of discretion to designate who gets to enter the U.S. and who does not. And it still took three tries to get a version that passed muster. In the case of birthright citizenship, nothing gives Trump any discretion at all. The Constitution says who gets to be a citizen. There is no carve out for illegal aliens.

And this whole pile of crap about "even if you're right, you're not really right." What bizarre whining. Dog, there's no secret here. It has nothing to do with me thinking I'm so smart or that I have a big brain. It's that I care about getting things right. I'll do the reading and I'll do the thinking. I don't need any talking points. I just care enough to put in the time and effort.

You care about cheerleading for the dudebro team. I'd say conservative team, but you aren't even a real conservative. You're a blustering, swaggering dudebro who turns into a whiny snowflake when someone calls you on your crap.

I for one have no idea what the actual outcome will be. I like to troll by stating what I'd like to see it turn out to be, but do I really know? No. I've never been to law school, much less claim to be a legal scholar on this particular issue. From lawyer friends of mine I've chatted with, this is fairly complex. And as with anything, politics are a factor. Is Supreme Court beyond politics? Do either liberals or conservatives believe that? I mean if it's decided 5-4 either way, does that mean either one of us were right? I would say no.

Ah the old make claims and then try to weasel out of them by claiming you were just trolling. And doing what we call "laying a feather bed" -- claiming in advance that even if you're wrong your're not really wrong.

It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Anyone who spends a few minutes to read the 14th amendment and the cases that discuss birthright citizenship and who understands civics at the Schoolhouse Rock level can see that.

Unless it's a unanimous decision against Trump, I don't think you can parade your big brain around. If even one Supreme Court justice says, "uh, yeah, the 14th amendment was not meant to apply to illegals," then I'd say you're not so smart as you make yourself out to be. Even one voice in such a direction would show it's a credible argument. Whoever that justice is, he or she sure knows a hell of a lot more than any of us. I'm not going to act like I know way more about the law than that person. Are you? Well, of course you are.

Again with the Strawmen. Where did I predict a unanimous decision? I predicted cert. denied. Look it up.

So, you're saying that owning black folks as property is a "credible argument" based on Dred Scott? Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with you? Even Supreme Court Justices make godawful decisions sometimes. I'll clue you in on a little secret -- Supreme Court Justices aren't Gods -- they're human and they “F” up. Sometimes they change their positions on an issue after they sign on to an opinion.

You and I both made predictions about the fate of Trump's executive order:

Yours:

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.

Mine:

So it's a slam dunk loser at the District court. A slam dunk loser at the Court of Appeals. And a cert denied at the Supreme Court.

I'm perfectly happy to stand by what I predicted. And if I'm wrong, I'll take my lumps. I'm not going to try and weasel my way out of what I said. And I'm not going to claim that even if I'm wrong that I'm really right. Or claim that I win if just a single Justice agrees with me. Cause that's just damned weak, dude.

Anyway, we'll see what happens. I have no idea how it turns out. Someone like Roberts who might be expected to vote in the more conservative direction could end up turncoating because he doesn't want to be the guy that upsets the apple cart. Like with ACA and the individual mandate. And that's fine, if it ends up that way, it ends up that way. Unlike leftists, who are unwilling to honor the results of the election, I'll stand by whatever the ruling is.

What you're not grasping is that issuing an executive order to revoke birthright citizenship isn't a "conservative" position. It's a radical fringe position. Justice Robert ain't about to hand Trump a box of crayons to edit what's written in the Constitution.

As a matter of principle, nothing to do with legal precedence and all that mumbojumbo, I firmly disagree with birthright citizenship. Trump is right that virtually nobody else does that. It's idiotic. And there is nothing racist whatsoever in wanting to bring that stupidity to an end. If we allow birthright citizenship to remain, then we need to get rid of the border patrol, congress should officially vote for full open borders, basically all immigration law should just be stripped. Whoever wants to come over here, ____ welcome. Free for all. Don't give a damn. To all the people who waited in line, respected our laws and did things the right way - well ____ you, you're a chump. You should have just swam across. Because we're a bunch of pussies and will give you all our ____.

LOL. Dog has a hissy fit. Film at 11:00.

[_Res Ipsa]

This is very much in kind with your arguments on the climate change thread.

What's your point? This is even more subjective than climate change. You can't prove human caused warming, nor can you prove, objectively, the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. It's a subjective debate, entirely dependent upon the legal approach. Beyond that it's kind of a waste of time because y'all are miserable people to interact with.

Blustering, swaggering dudebro plays the victim. Pathetic.

[_Res Ipsa]

Julian Sanchez makes a point here that is not the first thing to come to mind, but is serious:

There’s no serious question whether the Constitution requires birthright citizenship, but Trump has surrounded himself with cranks, apparently including someone at OLC who thinks he can revoke it by executive order. Which makes me anxiously curious what other crank theories they’re peddling. It’s not that the courts won’t (eventually) bat down this sort of stuff, but it’s easy to imagine a lot of chaos being created in the interim by a president whose advisors are telling him settled constitutional rules don’t apply. Maybe most worrying, not all executive orders are public. We have no idea what he might be directing the IC to do based on some John Yoo vision of Article II powers.

If this is based on Trump's interview, he makes crap up all the time on the fly. He's very good at it. He's got a track record of claiming people have told him various that they deny ever saying. I think his "now they're telling me" that he can do it with an executive order is just another example in a long line of making stuff up on the fly.

If someone at the OLC has spoken out on this, I'd love to hear it.