Everyone agree that Trump blatantly violated his oath of office on Day 1?
The convict’s oath of office requires him to defend the Constitution. The 14th Amendment clearly provides citizenship to any person born on US soil.
One may oppose the idea that an illegal immigrant’s infant ought not be protected by the 14th Amendment. There is a lengthy legislative process to amend/remove a constitutional amendment.
The convict opted to ignore the process via an executive order that violates the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
No surprise. Monday’s oath of office was for suckers and losers, not Trump, not the GOP leadership in Congress.
Well done to the Attorneys General who filed suit.
Link: Jesus supports this lawsuit
Replies to: Everyone agree that Trump blatantly violated his oath of office on Day 1?
Great news. ICE arrested 308 illegal alien criminals on the first day.
(no message)
Isn’t it nice to have people in charge who care about homeland security? I’m a little
Disappointed in only 308. I had over that number in the Illegals getting deported pool I am in.
...who care about the rule of law.
(no message)
Please refer to him as the President. Or he who lives rent free in your head.
(no message)
Now the law matters again? Yet, only YOUR interpretation. The citizenship birth right was
established to address the problem of children of slaves that were forced to come here.
Illegal immigrants are coming on their own here against the law, and using this as an anchor for themselves.
Certainly an issue that should be determined by the SCOTUS one way or another. Trump's action merely forces the discussion.
Now, about the president who broke his oath by bot enforcing the law which caused this whole mess? That would be Joe Biden and his Handlers who directed him.
Scholar Trump is the first President to figure out that birthright citizenship isn’t really a thing?
Of course. Every other President and US court were slow on the uptake.
Thank you Baron. No, you are not a crazy person.
Sounds like an issue for the SCOTUS. Good thing they are strict constitutionalists, right?
Let's see what they think.
A legal issue not raised in 125 years, Baron.
Let’s see you exercise some integrity one time and just acknowledge that the executive order blatantly conflicts with the language of the 14th Amendment.
That's never stopped Dems. Regardless, times have changed...
SCOTUS can rule if an amendment meant to apply to slaves brought here against their will applies to everyone in the entire world. Seems preposterous, and SCOTUS has accordingly made other exceptions which should also cover illegals. But, If it does apply to diplomats, illegals, etc., then Congress can propose an Article V Amendment to address that preposterous interpretation.
(By the way, are you now a textualist when it comes to interpreting the constitution? Would appreciate if you would declare yourself.)
You would have better luck going after Trump for not enforcing the law against Tik Tok, but I guess after not enforcing many laws for 4 years, Dems can't attack Trump for that.
That’s simply because no president has betrayed border laws before Biden-the issue was never forced
I will say that Obama pushed it along with DACA, but there were simply more pressing issues until you guys made it a crisis.
You’re gonna get one of his weird lib rule posts. Integrity & honesty don’t exist.
(no message)
“Weird” as in “100% accurate”. But no, conor merely made a point using only part of the facts.
There is no need for a Rule of Liberalism citation here…at this point, anyways….I never underestimate your adherence to the tenants listed in The Rules.
You misspelled "anyone"
(no message)
Elections have consequences. Deal with it.
(no message)
Mark down Hensou as a “yes.”
(no message)
Sorry, Mr. Hitler, you don’t speak for me.
(no message)
No. It is not clear in the Constitution. Birthright citizenship was by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark
The reasoning of that case made very little sense to me when I read it in Immigration law class in law school.
Who knew we had a woke SCOTUS in 1898?
(no message)
The law is well articulated in the complaint.
Doesn’t it make sense that the 125 year old Supreme Court decision has never been reversed because the language of birthright citizenship is pretty fookin clear?
The concept of jus solis is purely court made.
(no message)
No one agrees.
Keep on losing.
Can Trump issue an executive order disposing judicial branch?
Can the Convict issue an order closing all federal courts forever? Or shutting down Congress?
No
(no message)
He never did anything like that. Yr
fucking nuts.
So the Convict can pick ‘n choose which parts of the Constitution to ignore?
(no message)
Or when to add one. See the 28th that Joey added, amirite?
(no message)
Nope. Not the same. Read the history of the 28th Amendment.
Biden issued a declaration that the Equal Rights Amendment, ratified by 3/4 of the states, is the “law of the land.” That is, his statement is consistent with US law.
Trump’s executive order is grossly inconsistent with the US constitution and US law.
Nice try, slug.
Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
Oh, I thought we were just making shit up, you know what Joey did best.
Carry on but the Illegals are still going to get the boot.