Trump tries to end birthright citizenship with an executive order (2 Viewers)

[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/

 

[J-DONK]

This is the way I feel about it. I know there will be 2-3 Justices who will automatically side with Trump. The entire premise of citizenship in the US comes down to 2-3 conservative Justices. It makes me ill.

What's wild is this is not a United States thing. It's a western hemisphere attitude.

It's essentially saying we are no longer a nation of immigrants.

Also Barrett, and Roberts seem to despise Trump on a personal level and often rule against him.

 

[MT15]

I see this as maybe pissing off the Justices - well except for the 2 worst most compromised ones.

 

[superchuck500]

I see this as maybe pissing off the Justices - well except for the 2 worst most compromised ones.

I bet he won’t go

 

[MT15]

I bet he won’t go

I mean, what would he do? He wouldn’t be allowed to argue the case, I don’t think. Just sit there and glower at the Justices?

 

[SamAndreas]

I see this as maybe pissing off the Justices - well except for the 2 worst most compromised ones.

I sense that we're swinging back to center MT.

Trump went way too far, too fast. And he didn't consolidate what he gained through executive orders by seeing to it that the legislature made them into laws while he was doing it. So much of it will collapse the moment a Democrat walks into the Oval Office and signs an executive order which cancels all of Trumps previous orders.

I remember back when Obama canceled all of Bush's executive orders on his first day.

 

[MT15]

I hope so, Sam. It cannot happen soon enough.

I feel a great sense of unease. This SCOTUS is capable of making up a BS ruling on this issue. They’ve done it already for abortion and for presidential immunity. They could do it again.

 

[SamAndreas]

I bet he won’t go

I wouldn't put up good money to bet against that.



I do hope he goes. There's a real good reason no president has gone there. That reason is it would undermine what those long line of Presidents wanted to see the court do.

 

[faceman]

I sense that we're swinging back to center MT.

Trump went way too far, too fast. And he didn't consolidate what he gained through executive orders by seeing to it that the legislature made them into laws while he was doing it. So much of it will collapse the moment a Democrat walks into the Oval Office and signs an executive order which cancels all of Trumps previous orders.

I remember back when Obama canceled all of Bush's executive orders on his first day.

I agree Sam. The justice system needs time to work. Scotus and Appeals courts have to wait on
lower court decisions. It took 1year before Scotus shut down his tariffs. The judicial branch is
finally catching up to him. I'm expecting a 6-3 and possibly a 7-2 against Trump on the birthright issue.

 

[MT15]

I agree Sam. The justice system needs time to work. Scotus and Appeals courts have to wait on
lower court decisions. It took 1year before Scotus shut down his tariffs. The judicial branch is
finally catching up to him. I'm expecting a 6-3 and possibly a 7-2 against Trump on the birthright issue.

It shouldn’t have any dissent. If it isn’t 9-0, it just shows how corrupt some of the justices are.

 

[faceman]

It shouldn’t have any dissent. If it isn’t 9-0, it just shows how corrupt some of the justices are.

Thomas and Alito should be impeached. Thomas has definitely been compromised and
I expect a move to impeach him if the Dems get control of both houses

 

[superchuck500]

 

[superchuck500]

 

[superchuck500]

Trump is apparently on his way to SCOTUS. Oral argument typically begins a few minutes after 10am. I suspect we will already see Trump's impact on the usual proceedings by him being late.

 

[superchuck500]

Trump is apparently on his way to SCOTUS. Oral argument typically begins a few minutes after 10am. I suspect we will already see Trump's impact on the usual proceedings by him being late.

Well the delay was only a few minutes. Trump is in the gallery. The argument has begun.

 

[superchuck500]

So here's what I think the possible routes are for the Court and how likely they are:

1. The EO is procedurally invalid without getting to the merits of the citizenship question. I don't think this going to be a viable option for the Court, the EO is ostensibly valid - it purports to use existing federal authority to instruct relevant federal agencies to do something.

2. The EO is unlawful because it instructs federal agencies to act in a manner that directly contradicts the Immigration Act (mid-1900s) statute that codifies the 14A citizenship clause. Regardless of whether the statute's application of the citizenship clause is right or wrong, an EO cannot contradict a federal statute. So the EO is struck down without a new ruling on the meaning of the citizenship clause.

3. The EO is unconstitutional because it violates the citizenship clause from the 14A. This ruling would fully address the birthright citizenship question and state clearly what the clause means as to eligibility.

4. The EO is valid and constitutional - the EO correctly interprets the citizenship clause. I think this is highly unlikely to the point of near certainly not going to happen.


So is it 2 or 3? I don't think 2 is necessarily the cop out that some would believe - it would have the benefit of (a) clearly checking the use of EO power and (2) effectively affirming the view of the citizenship clause that is reflected in the immigration statute. But clearly 3 would be the most satisfying for Americans wanting clarity about what the Constitution means.

 

[efil4]

Well the delay was only a few minutes. Trump is in the gallery. The argument has begun.

LOL he thinks his "presence" will sway the Judges like the way Gotti's presence would sway the jury lol.

 

[faceman]

LOL he thinks his "presence" will sway the Judges like the way Gotti's presence would sway the jury lol.

odds on him nodding off?

 

[superchuck500]

LOL he thinks his "presence" will sway the Judges like the way Gotti's presence would sway the jury lol.