Not "about philosophy or political ideology.ā
OMG
āBirthright citizenship is constitutionally mandated by the 14th Amendment, and it would almost certainly take a constitutional amendment to change that, barring some extraordinary Supreme Court action.ā
I think I see the problem right thereā¦
Remember that Steve Scalise was described early in his political career as āDavid Duke without the baggage.ā That was intended as a compliment.
Itās not going anywhere - itās in the constitution. You are not going to amend the constitution. You will be lucky if you donāt get indicted after the election but one thing I know - you arenāt going to do shit.
I wonder how far back you have to go to find which one of Steve Scaliseās ancestors was granted birthright citizenship. Two generations? Three?
Iāve been wondering about that all morning. Would Roberts want to be the guy that officially ended democracy in this country by allowing the president to alter the constitution by fiat?
Or even if they took a more limited approach by allowing him to define an amendment by E.O., wouldnāt that effectively end the role of the Supreme Court entirely?
No.
That isnāt going to happen.
Just competing with Jim Jordan for speakerā¦
I wonder how far back you have to go to find which one of Steve Scaliseās ancestors was granted birthright citizenship. Two generations? Three?
Thats different doncha know, heās whiteā¦
Thatās what I think too, but I do think there may be a few votes for it. Barf, Clarence, Alito, Gorsuch*? Iām not taking bets there.
Heās just trying to distract people from the upcoming elections. God know whatās next. Heāll probably accuse Democrats of planning to impose martial law if they take Congress.
Very well put here:
Which ārule of lawā is THAT Scalise? The one you buy into or the ACTUAL CONSTITUTION FOUNDING FATHER LEGISLATIVE ārule of lawā? Just checking.
It would never make it there. Itās clear in the constitution - thatās what it says and it would require an amendment which 2/3ds of the states have to agree with.ā
The justices canāt just ignore that provision.
Iāve said it so many times - things are really circling the drain when I consistently find myself on the same side as people like Frum and gasp Bill Kristol. Damn you trump. Damn you to hell.
Gotta say, this is by far Trumpās best electoral move. At a stroke he turns the national conversation to immigration. But thereās a long time to go. News cycle will spit this out in 48 hours.
There are of course perils involved in asserting that the express terms of the Constitution can be nixed by Executive Order. This is where Dems have to show some political skill and frame this as a dictatorial move rather than an anti-immigration measure.
And, occasionally, Erick son of Erick son of Erickā¦
Steve Scalise is a bonehead. Itās not important what he thinks, and I wager heāll be Minority Whip in a matter of weeks.
The so called āstrict Constitutionalistsā should shut the door on this nonsense because birthright citizenship is a constitutionally mandated provision, but I imagine theyāll slither out of it. We are at least spared a legal dipsy doodle from Antonin Scalia, who would have found a way to agree with Trump, no doubt.
I agree that itās highly unlikely, but a fraudulent construction of the Constitution is entirely within their capacities and powers. Let me put it this way: if itās possible to imagine one member of the Trump Court supporting his party leader, then itās possible that more than one will, and that this number would be five. Alternatively, if Iām Thomas or Alito or Kavanaugh and know that the majority will hold against Trump in this instance, I would certainly be tempted to dissent in order to launch the jurisprudence with a view to consolidating a like-minded majority further down the road.
But there is no legal question to take to the SCOTUS.
There is no dispute - he canāt do what he talking about because he doesnāt have the power or authortiy = and there is no question about that.