Trump: I don't give a fuck what the 14th amendment says

[Crackpot]

As petty as Trump is how can Graham expect anything at all from the man? Unless it’s some offer from the powers that be once the current occupant is gone. Yeah

[ex-khobar Andy]

It's pretty obvious to me that Trump does not actually give a fuck about this issue. He says that legal scholars agree with him; which of course is nonsense and he knows it's nonsense.

But all he needs is enough of his base to believe that he can do this for exactly seven days until the election. No judge is going to say you can't do this until he actually creates the EO. Which of course he won't do, because he does not want the loss. After the election he will find some reason to back down; or more likely, as usual, other events will have overtaken it and we will all move onto the next item.

[Burning Petard]

"After the election he will find some reason to back down; or more likely, as usual, other events will have overtaken it and we will all move onto the next item. (Squirrel)

snailgate

[RayThom]

"After the election he will find some reason to back down; or more likely, as usual, other events will have overtaken it and we will all move onto the next item. (Squirrel)
snailgate

After this election Lord Dampnut will be railing about how the Chinese (and the Russians and the media, maybe?) meddled in the midterms, and how unfair the results were skewed against the Repubs.

YKIAIKI

[Sue U]

Politics
Birthright Citizenship Explained Like You're a Racist 5-Year-Old

Michael Harriot



5-year-old racist: Hey, why is everyone talking about birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment?

Me: Well, my little Caucasian friend, it’s because of racism.

Oooh, I like racism! Tell me more!

Well, once upon a time, in a kingdom not very far, far away, a group of white men passed the Naturalization Acts in 1790 and 1795, declaring only white men of “good moral character” could become citizens.

Years later, in 1857, an enslaved man named Dred Scott went before nine white men and sued for his freedom. The white men, who formed the Supreme Court, eventually created a fairy tale called Scott vs. Sanford, which came to be known as the “Dred Scott Decision” and basically said this country was founded on the premise that black people were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

But I don’t understand. Black people are citizens, aren’t they?

Kinda. In 1868, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Is that the one about committing adultery? Also, what is adultery. Will I commit it when I turn 18 and become an adult?

Probably.

But you’re talking about Biblical commandments. The 14th Amendment finally granted citizenship to former slaves, essentially overturning the Dred Scott ruling. You might know it from its equal protection clause, which has been used in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned the premise of separate but equal; Loving v. Virginia, which overturned laws banning interracial marriage; or Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which outlawed racial quotas but upheld the use of race in determining admission to college.

But what does any of this have to do with immigrants?

Well, that amendment settled the question of citizenship by defining a citizen as:

• All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

But Donald Trump says many legal scholars believe he can issue an executive order changing that.

Wow. Is it true?

Trump is lying. Just like when he said America is the “only country” that grants birthright citizenship (there are at least 30), there aren’t “many legal scholars” who believe he can do that. But there are some.

Well, I’m only five, plus I’m racist, which means my reading comprehension isn’t that great. But even I can understand that the Constitution says anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen. Can the president overrule the Constitution?

Well... Kinda.

Hold up. Everything I’ve heard says he can’t. What the fuck does “kinda” mean?

Stop cursing. Your racist mother wouldn’t appreciate that kind of language.

She lets me say the n-word.

Of course, she does.

Anyway, Trump can’t unilaterally issue an executive order overturning something that is written in the Constitution, but as the chief executive, he can tell people to do unconstitutional shit, and they are legally required to do it.

For instance, he can tell the State Department to stop issuing passports to children of non-citizens because the State Department is part of the Executive Branch. If he signs the Executive Order, he could theoretically tell Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers (again, part of the Executive Branch) to deport the children of undocumented residents.

That sounds cool. But the Constitution says...

I know, I know, Racist Baby. But he could also declare that he has these powers because of a state of emergency declared after 9/11.

But that was 17 years ago!

Yes, it was. But Trump and his Republican cronies in Congress keep quietly extending Proclamation 7463, which put the country in a perpetual state of emergency after the terrorist attacks of 2001. Obama did the same thing.

But if Trump did this, it would immediately be thrown out by a federal court, right?

Well... kinda.

It depends on which court hears it. If it lands in front of a conservative court, then who knows? Plus, Trump has been quietly filling the courts with conservative judges. Right now they are confirming judges while Congress is in recess.

But when the Supreme Court gets it, it wouldn’t stand a chance, right?

Well... maybe.

But both you and my racist toddler brain tells me that the Constitution clearly says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Well, there are some conservative experts — not very many, but some — who say too many people ignore the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. In short, some, like Matthew Spalding, contend the 14th Amendment was intended to only apply to children born in the U.S. and who are not subject to the laws of another country. He writes:

• Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause (“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, “not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

Some suspect recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh believes the same thing.

But is that what Trump believes?

Trump reads on the same grade level as you. He’s just trying to appeal to his racist, white nationalist contingent.

Damn. But why do you think it’s racist?

Because it’s a problem that doesn’t exist. The number of children born to unauthorized immigrants has declined for more than 10 years, according to Pew Research. So has the number of undocumented border crossings. And crime by immigrants has always been lower than crime by citizens.

It is all a myth.

But if it’s unconstitutional and not likely to happen, why is he doing this?

Hold up, racist baby. I never said that.

You said it was unconstitutional.

So were Japanese Internment camps. Segregation was unconstitutional, too. So is shooting black people in the face and suppressing the vote. Trump is doing what America has always done.

They do racist shit and pretend they didn’t know until they got an official ruling on their racism.

It’s what made this country believe blacks had no “rights which the white man was bound to respect.” It’s what made America think separate could be equal. It’s what made them think white men could be of “good moral character.”

Ultimately, it’s what made America great...

Again.

Source: The Root

[Bicycle Bill]

Seems strange how conservatives are willing to put so much weight on one clause about being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the United States)" when they want to exclude someone who doesn't look like them from 'their' country — but totally fucking ignore another clause about "a well regulated Militia" when it comes to letting just anyone buy, carry, and use a weapon.

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.

[Econoline]

Here's an excellent article on this issue—including an exhaustive look at the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase—written by a professor of constitutional law who literally wrote the book (well, *a* book, anyway) on the history of the 14th Amendment. TL:DR version: when written in 1866, that phrase was specifically intended to exclude (a) members of Indian tribes (which were at the time treated as quasi-independent national governments, governed by treaty agreements), and (b) persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

[Sue U]

when written in 1866, that phrase was specifically intended to exclude (a) members of Indian tribes (which were at the time treated as quasi-independent national governments, governed by treaty agreements),

That seemed blindingly obvious to me. But what do I know, I'm just a country lawyer.

[Big RR]

I guess we have the same country legal roots Sue; indeed, if we accept the assertion some are making about not having any loyalty or obligation to any foreign government, many children of US citizen parents would not be citizens by birth in the US (they might get derivative citizenship through their parents, but that is something different) as many may have some obligations to their mother country; e.g. a friend of mine was almost conscripted when visiting Greece even though his parents were born in the US (his grandparents were Greek and later naturalized as US citizens and this was enough for him to be considered Greek and subject to their draft) and the US embassy wasn't a lot of help (indeed, as I recall he only avoided it because the situation with Turkey over Cypress calmed down and he quickly left Greece (before, they would not let him exit the country).

[Scooter]

Let's take up a collection for wes, I'd be willing to contribute if he tied himself to the anchor of his boat and threw it overboard.

Americans Would Feel Safer If a Huge Caravan of Angry White Men Left the Country

MINNESOTA (The Borowitz Report)—A vast majority of Americans would feel significantly safer if an enormous caravan consisting of angry white men left the country, a new poll indicates.

The poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, suggests that the concept of an angry-white-male caravan could be the most wildly popular policy proposal in the run-up to Tuesday’s midterm elections.

In an indication of just how much support the proposal has, many Americans said that they would personally contribute gas money to help get the caravan on its way.

Despite the popularity of the caravan, however, there was disagreement over what the optimal number of angry white men to depart with it would be, with some suggesting a figure of twenty thousand and others preferring a number as high as forty million.

Additionally, the implementation of such a caravan could face major obstacles; the survey indicates that both Mexican and Canadian voters overwhelmingly oppose any influx whatsoever of angry white American males.