Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: centurion316

>>...but the legislative solution is the way to go and the court will sit on the sidelines and watch the fight.<<

I now think the executive order might be just as effective, and more likely to succeed, given that McConnell remains glued to the filibuster rule.

The “subject to the jurisdiction...” clause is open to interpretation but it’s quite possible that a conservative justice would interpret it to mean that the parent(s) must not still be under the jurisdiction of a foreign country.

While I wouldn’t bet on a success with the current court, adding one more originalist to the court could be sufficient to see them uphold an Executive Order doing away with the current birthright citizenship treatment.

I think one mistake the Left (as well as many on the Right) continually makes is assuming the Trump is always shooting from the hip. He now has direct, and immediate, access to the finest legal minds in the country. It’s silly to think that he doesn’t ever avail himself of that opportunity.


10 posted on 10/31/2018 4:16:56 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left....completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Norseman

The moment that the E.O. is issued, multiple challenges will be filed across the land in every federal court. The result will be considerable delay whatever the eventual outcome.


12 posted on 10/31/2018 4:29:38 PM PDT by centurion316 (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Norseman
While I wouldn’t bet on a success with the current court, adding one more originalist to the court could be sufficient to see them uphold an Executive Order doing away with the current birthright citizenship treatment.

An Executive Order would not be permanent though, and that is a hole big enough to drive a truck through.

Wouldn't it be better for a case to be brought to SCOTUS challenging the status of certain citizens or something? Why would it take an Executive Order to apply the restriction of the amendment?

61 posted on 11/01/2018 5:32:02 AM PDT by Religion and Politics (It is time for more than one denomination of "Political Correctness".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Norseman

“The “subject to the jurisdiction...” clause is open to interpretation but it’s quite possible that a conservative justice would interpret it to mean that the parent(s) must not still be under the jurisdiction of a foreign country.”

Judge Napolitano seems to be promoting the fiction that it only means that one is subject to American law while in America. I think he knows better, if not how did he ever become a judge? If it only meant that you have to obey the law of this country it would be superfluous and the constitution was not written by word salad chefs.

For nearly 100 years no one thought that the fourteenth amendment was intended to give automatic citizenship to anyone who was born on American soil regardless of parentage. Now we are expected to accept that those who wrote the amendment did not know what they were writing.


82 posted on 11/02/2018 6:35:16 AM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson