Trump tries to end birthright citizenship with an executive order (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

I think this deserves its own thread. Perhaps we can try to migrate discussion from the other thread to this one.

Here is the Executive Order:

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

www.whitehouse.gov

The order presents itself on existing good-ground to exclude children of unlawful immigrants, but that's false - the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not have an ambiguous history.

Twenty-two states and others filed immediate lawsuits to suspend and ultimately rescind the order.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/lawsuits-challenge-trumps-birthright-citizenship-other-orders-2025-01-21/

 

[Sendai]

It’s stunning that they didn’t feel the need to affirm birthright citizenship.

It wasn’t the issue before them.

The issue was lower courts issuing universal injunctions.

If there emerges a party denied citizenship because of parents immigration status then it will work its way to the courts.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Under His Eye.

 

[Sendai]

Let say it is stopped by other means, won't this end up right back at the Supreme Court?

Or, if it isn't stopped it'll be challenged and end up in the Supreme Court

Since it's going to end up in front of the Supreme Court for a final ruling anyway why go through the whole 'other means' process and just make a final ruling?

It could quite easily be resolved by a federal appeals court. Surely upholding birthright citizenship. And the Supreme Court passing on the appeal court ruling. Which, in effect, endorses the ruling.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

This clears the way for future Presidents to take action on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Optimus Prime]

It could quite easily be resolved by a federal appeals court. Surely upholding birthright citizenship. And the Supreme Court passing on the appeal court ruling.

But why even go through that appeals process?

If SCOTUS rules on upholding birthright citizenship, makes it clear that it the law of the land, there is no workaround, no loophole no one is thinking there's still a chance it may happen

As it stands now some are thinking there's a chance this may still happen

and whatever the federal appeals court rules people will wait to see if SCOTUS will hear the case

And if they do they'll wait and see what SCOTUS will rule

And who knows how long that timeline will be, even just the appeals court process

All of which could be avoided if SCOTUS makes their ruling

 

[efil4]

Let say it is stopped by other means, won't this end up right back at the Supreme Court?

Or, if it isn't stopped it'll be challenged and end up in the Supreme Court

Since it's going to end up in front of the Supreme Court for a final ruling anyway why go through the whole 'other means' process and just make a final ruling?

i think its procedural - SCOTUS wont "on their own" just rule on another issue that hasnt exhausted its way thru lower courts.

think of it like a complaint- you file a specific complaint, but there is an ancillary complaint, but you didnt request THAT issue to be ruled on, just the specific complaint.

Thats what DOJ did here- they were quite specific to the lower court overstepping bounds and THATS what SCOTUS ruled on. Just that. Even saying the ADMIN issue may violate 14th but thats a separate issue to bring to the courts

( see Sotomayor saying parents should class action sue NOW )

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

i think its procedural - SCOTUS wont "on their own" just rule on another issue that hasnt exhausted its way thru lower courts.

think of it like a complaint- you file a specific complaint, but there is an ancillary complaint, but you didnt request THAT issue to be ruled on, just the specific complaint.

Thats what DOJ did here- they were quite specific to the lower court overstepping bounds and THATS what SCOTUS ruled on. Just that. Even saying the ADMIN issue may violate 14th but thats a separate issue to bring to the courts

( see Sotomayor saying parents should class action sue NOW )

That is not what we all are going hear coming from the Republican Party, they are going to frame the narrative that SCoTUS upheld the order and that such Federal Court injunctions are unconstitutional.

 

[efil4]

That is not what we all are going hear coming from the Republican Party, they are going to frame the narrative that SCoTUS upheld the order and that such Federal Court injunctions are unconstitutional.

Of course...that narrative is in full effect on X and Fox Prpoganda Network. I'm sure it's a matter of time before the rank n file GOP echo endlessly. Some who know this is specific to lower courts only but will spin to claim victory ( in total)

See Fordow lol

 

[Sendai]

My favorite paragraph from the opinion

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

 

[efil4]

My favorite paragraph from the opinion

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Why is it your favorite? did you read Jacksons argument?

pages 98-119

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

do tell us the argument she made that is at odds with 200 years plus of precedent

im curious - not to mention, she literally starts her dissent with agreeing with SOTOMAYOR 100% - thats like her first sentence.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

My favorite paragraph from the opinion

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Why is it your favorite? did you read Jacksons argument?

pages 98-119

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

do tell us the argument she made that is at odds with 200 years plus of precedent

im curious - not to mention, she literally starts her dissent with agreeing with SOTOMAYOR 100% - thats like her first sentence.

The majority cannot deny that our Constitution was designed to split the powers of a monarch between the governing branches to protect the People. Nor is it debatable that the role of the Judiciary in our constitutional scheme is to ensure fidelity to law. But these core values are strangely absent from today’s decision. Focusing on inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals, the majority ignores the Judiciary’s foundational duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.

The majority’s ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate. The very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness.

With deep disillusionment, I dissent.

...The power to compel the Executive to follow the law is particularly vital where the relevant law is the Constitution. When the Executive transgresses an Act of Congress, there are mechanisms through which Congress can assert its check against the Executive unilaterally—such as, for example, asserting the power of the purse. See K. Stith, Congress’ Power of the Purse, 97 Yale L. J. 1343, 1360(1988) (describing Congress’s ability to “regulat[e] executive branch activities by limitations on appropriations”).But when the Executive violates the Constitution, the only recourse is the courts. Eliminate that check, and our government ceases to be one of “limited powers.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457 (1991). After all, a limit that“ do[es] not confine the perso[n] on whom [it is] imposed” is no limit at all. Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 176.1

All that to say that the Judicial is falling inline with the Legislative in surrendering their power to the Executive.

THREE APPEALATE COURTS have stayed the ORDER of THREE DISTRICT COURTS. Are we now saying that in order for such rulings to stand nationwide, they must be heard and ruled throughout the Judicial Circuit?

Given the critical role of the Judiciary in maintaining the rule of law, see Part I, supra, it is odd, to say the least, that the Court would grant the Executive’s wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the Constitution. But the majority goes there. It holds that, even assuming that Executive Order No. 14160 violates the Constitution, federal courts lack the power to prevent the Executive from continuing to implement that unconstitutional directive.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

My favorite paragraph from the opinion

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

and this is why Barret's assertion is wrong:

Talk about "skipping over the part"???

 

[Sendai]

The federal district court judge has the power to provide remedy for the case at hand. That remedy applies to the jurisdiction of the district court judge providing the remedy. Congress gave the district court judge jurisdiction over a specific district. Not the entire country. Same for federal appeals courts. Their rulings apply to their congressionally defined jurisdiction. Quite often the Supreme Court takes up cases where there are federal appeals court rulings are in conflict. Ultimately, the only court with jurisdiction over the entire country is the supreme court.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

No they aren’t.

How much time and effort did you put into that response? Tyrant Trump and his supporters have made it so impossible of you to give them cover and excuse their behavior that you've surrender to just saying, "nuh-uh" to every factually accurate bad thing about tyrant Trump and his supporters. In this case, the supporters are the 6 justices on the Supreme Court who were all picked by the very openly, fascist Catholic Leonard Leo.

So the proportionately equivalent reply to your response is "uh-huh."

 

[J-DONK]

The federal district court judge has the power to provide remedy for the case at hand. That remedy applies to the jurisdiction of the district court judge providing the remedy. Congress gave the district court judge jurisdiction over a specific district. Not the entire country. Same for federal appeals courts. Their rulings apply to their congressionally defined jurisdiction. Quite often the Supreme Court takes up cases where there are federal appeals court rulings are in conflict. Ultimately, the only court with jurisdiction over the entire country is the supreme court.

In a vacuum this fine, but then the SC needs to expedite, and increase their case load dramatically.

This also has come up under both Trump admins. Republicans loved to file cases in Texas during the entire Biden admin. You make this ruling now, and can't go back in 2028.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Sounds like it

It's a very wrong ruling and I feel for everyone not fortunate enough to live in the Ninth Circuit.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

It wasn’t the issue before them.

The issue was lower courts issuing universal injunctions.

If there emerges a party denied citizenship because of parents immigration status then it will work its way to the courts.

Only after a lot of people have been irreversibly harmed. Tyrant Trump's 6 supporters on the Supreme Court know that. That's why they punted affirming the constitutional right of birthright citizenship. It's also why they've stripped away courts issuing nationwide injunctions, which are done to prevent irreversible harm to people.

Tyrant Trump's 6 supporters on the Supreme Court just paved the way for tyrants to irreversibly harm people and that's exactly what they intended to do. They are in support of the tyranny even though it's a clear violation of the constitution.

These same 6 supporters on the Supreme Court have repeatedly made comments, not pertaining to the rulings they have issued, to give guidance and set the stage for future rulings. In this case, they chose not to comment at all on the constitutional right of birthright citizenship.

You just can't quit spewing deceiving partial truths in your desperate effort to make excuses and give cover to tyrant Trump and his supporters.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

It could quite easily be resolved by a federal appeals court. Surely upholding birthright citizenship. And the Supreme Court passing on the appeal court ruling. Which, in effect, endorses the ruling.

You know it's not going to happen that way. You know it will happen the opposite way. A cherry picked appellant court will rule against birthright citizenship and the 6 cowardly supporters of tyrant Trump on the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case which will effectively end birthright citizenship even though it's a blatant constitutional violation.

Here's the thing people are overlooking is this will not be limited to just a one generational look back order on Trump's part. The order opens the door on saying since there is no proof that your great great great grandparents were legal citizens, then no one in direct lineage was legal citizens either which means you are not a legal citizen even though you're family was born and lived here for four generations. Read the executive order again if you don't believe me.

They intentionally wrote it in a way that they can revoke anyone's citizenship and, with the blessings of the same 6 justices, they can then deport you to anywhere in the world they want to without providing you with any due process.