Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional!

[Crumpets]

Here's your new far-right talking point. Why didn't I see it before?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-interview-121515.html

Part of his plan to deport birthright citizens from undocumented immigrant parents.

[Blue3]

Trump doesn't just want to stop birthright citizenship for future Americans, he wants to take citizenship away from people who were already born here. So if you had a great-grandmother who immigrated from Poland and might not have done all the paperwork right on Ellis Island, Trump says he can take your citizenship away and deport you. But of course he's not going after immigrants and descendants of immigrants from Europe. Wonder why?

[Simfan34]

He can't strip citizenship from people like that. Legally or illegally, if your parents were here when you were born, you are a citizen.

Anyway, I say more wealthy Chinese coming here to give birth is a good thing for the country.

[King]

The 14th Amendment will heel to The Donald just like there others!

[Simfan34]

The 14th Amendment will heel to The Donald just like there others!

At this rate, who knows.

[SteveRogers]

So Trump's immigration plan now includes deporting American citizens? Yep he's got totes serious policy proposals guyz.

[Jacobtm]

Hey if Gay Marriage was a constitutional right this whole time, maybe the SC justices under President Trump will begin to "reinterpret" the 14th amendment?

[Stranger in a strange land]

He can't strip citizenship from people like that. Legally or illegally, if your parents were here when you were born, you are a citizen.

Anyway, I say more wealthy Chinese coming here to give birth is a good thing for the country.

Agreed, although Birth Tourism should be heavily taxed.

[Jacobtm]

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Actually, there is support to deport the Parents, but not children of illegals, and if that's the case, this will never fly.

[Jacobtm]

Actually, there is support to deport the Parents, but not children of illegals, and if that's the case, this will never fly.

Deport the parents. They choose what to do with their kid.

Are they such sh**tty parents that they would leave their kid in the U.S.?

Well whatever, if that's their choice they're up for adoption.

Or they could keep their kid and raise him in Mexico, as millions of people do, and go on with their lives.

If that kid remains a citizen, ok, fine. Plenty of U.S. citizens are raised abroad.

[SteveRogers]

It's a patently nonsensical interpretation. Even the most hackish of the current Supreme Court justices would never go for it. Again, the lawyer who came up with Trump's "novel interpretation" was probably the same lawyer who didn't know spousal rape was a thing. I'm sure Trump's legal team is composed of excellent corporate attorneys, but they're apparently just worthless once they get out of their element.

[TarHeelDem]

My head hurts. Oy.

[ag]

I hope they will first deport Trump.

[Jacobtm]

It's a patently nonsensical interpretation. Even the most hackish of the current Supreme Court justices would never go for it. Again, the lawyer who came up with Trump's "novel interpretation" was probably the same lawyer who didn't know spousal rape was a thing. I'm sure Trump's legal team is composed of excellent corporate attorneys, but they're apparently just worthless once they get out of their element.

They found the "Gay Marriage Is Legal" part of the constitution, so anything is possible.

[mds32]

HOW? It is in the Constitution!

[bobloblaw]

Here's your new far-right talking point. Why didn't I see it before?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-interview-121515.html

Part of his plan to deport birthright citizens from undocumented immigrant parents.

That isnt what he said moron.

[SteveRogers]

It's a patently nonsensical interpretation. Even the most hackish of the current Supreme Court justices would never go for it. Again, the lawyer who came up with Trump's "novel interpretation" was probably the same lawyer who didn't know spousal rape was a thing. I'm sure Trump's legal team is composed of excellent corporate attorneys, but they're apparently just worthless once they get out of their element.

They found the "Gay Marriage Is Legal" part of the constitution, so anything is possible.

Thank you for your astute legal analysis

[Jacobtm]

It's a patently nonsensical interpretation. Even the most hackish of the current Supreme Court justices would never go for it. Again, the lawyer who came up with Trump's "novel interpretation" was probably the same lawyer who didn't know spousal rape was a thing. I'm sure Trump's legal team is composed of excellent corporate attorneys, but they're apparently just worthless once they get out of their element.

They found the "Gay Marriage Is Legal" part of the constitution, so anything is possible.

Thank you for your astute legal analysis

Our Supreme Court justices re-interpret the constitution to mean anything they like. Of course the constitution says nothing about gay marriage, and it has never been a "right" in the U.S. Yet the current intellectual climate is such that 5/9 of them felt compelled to make up some BS about how the constitution allows for gay marriage, which it plainly never did.

The system of allowing the Supreme Court to "interpret" the laws just means that ultimately, the opinion of 5/9 of those individuals is the law of the land, no matter how nonsensical their interpretation is.

As such, they could take equal liberties with the 14th amendment if they so choose.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It's a patently nonsensical interpretation. Even the most hackish of the current Supreme Court justices would never go for it. Again, the lawyer who came up with Trump's "novel interpretation" was probably the same lawyer who didn't know spousal rape was a thing. I'm sure Trump's legal team is composed of excellent corporate attorneys, but they're apparently just worthless once they get out of their element.

They found the "Gay Marriage Is Legal" part of the constitution, so anything is possible.

Thank you for your astute legal analysis

Our Supreme Court justices re-interpret the constitution to mean anything they like. Of course the constitution says nothing about gay marriage, and it has never been a "right" in the U.S. Yet the current intellectual climate is such that 5/9 of them felt compelled to make up some BS about how the constitution allows for gay marriage, which it plainly never did.

The system of allowing the Supreme Court to "interpret" the laws just means that ultimately, the opinion of 5/9 of those individuals is the law of the land, no matter how nonsensical their interpretation is.

As such, they could take equal liberties with the 14th amendment if they so choose.

The U.S. Constitution grants all citizens equal protection under the law, which is clearly violated by state statutes that bar certain citizens from marrying. A ban on birthright citizenship, by contrast, contradicts the very letter of the 14th Amendment.

[Jacobtm]

It's interesting that Jacob justifies his opposition to equal marriage by saying "it had never been a right before" while ignoring that Jim Crow existed for nearly 100 years after the 14th amendment passed.

This just goes to show how "flexible" interpretations of the constitution can be. For so long Jim Crow it was accepted by the Supreme Court. Then intellectual fashion changed, and suddenly, it had been unconstitutional all along!

[Torie]

Here's your new far-right talking point. Why didn't I see it before?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-interview-121515.html

Part of his plan to deport birthright citizens from undocumented immigrant parents.

No, Trump is just claiming that the 14th amendment is being misinterpreted, and does not intend to mean that being born in the US, if not a resident, makes one a citizen. I am not sure the issue has ever been litigated up to SCOTUS, but I could be wrong. So the title of the thread (and the article from which the title came) is misleading.

[/]

Right, I forgot how things in the Constitution can be unconstitutional.

[ag]

Here's your new far-right talking point. Why didn't I see it before?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-interview-121515.html

Part of his plan to deport birthright citizens from undocumented immigrant parents.

No, Trump is just claiming that the 14th amendment is being misinterpreted, and does not intend to mean that being born in the US, if not a resident, makes one a citizen. I am not sure the issue has ever been litigated up to SCOTUS, but I could be wrong. So the title of the thread (and the article from which the title came) is misleading.

So, I guess, the argument would be that non-residents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Could they then be prosecuted in a US court? Or what other content is there in the words "subject to the jurisdiction of..." ?

[jimrtex]

Here's your new far-right talking point. Why didn't I see it before?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-interview-121515.html

Part of his plan to deport birthright citizens from undocumented immigrant parents.

No, Trump is just claiming that the 14th amendment is being misinterpreted, and does not intend to mean that being born in the US, if not a resident, makes one a citizen. I am not sure the issue has ever been litigated up to SCOTUS, but I could be wrong. So the title of the thread (and the article from which the title came) is misleading.

Trump’s Critics Are Wrong about the Fourteenth Amendment...