Trump plans to sign EO ending birthright citizenship

[TJustice]

In appellate work one side typically argues the judge followed the law and applied the correct facts. (typically you can't argue fact finding on appeal.)

The side moving for the appeal has a choice.
1. The judge did not follow the law.
2. The law must change because its bad. (this is a tough one and leads to further litigation)
or

3. Carve out the fact pattern... distinguish the facts of your case from the previous cases thereby allowing the court to make new law (a new ruling) or limit the old ruling to narrow set of fact patterns... etc.

You win by getting new law or a "carve out" for your facts from the old line of cases.


Hence the court very easily carve all previous cases of citizenship.

Blah blah blah.

You are basically talking to yourself. Some of what you said is sound and some is just your opinion.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re arguing and it is true sometimes the court kicks issues back to the congress and other state and local governments to get their laws right under the constitution but that simply means that government does have authority over an issue they just implemented it outside of the parameters of the constitution.

Regardless, it doesn’t make legal sense that the court would rule we all have citizenship due to birthright and others do not due to not having legal status parents without some kind of congressional qualification. And yes you have already stated this in a round about way and this has been my argument all the way through. I just think you like to argue.

Now what we do have a true disagreement with is that the court will allow for a carve out within the current law as stands. I say absolutely not. And I’m well aware there are no rules in this area but it would break with normal rules and throw instability into our system.

Just the idea that we all have citizenship based on birthright but others do not because of a standard not applied to the vast majority would be repugnant to the rule of law.

Now does the executive branch have an argument stating congress has already applied jurisdictional standards through immigration and visiting laws is, in my opinion, the real issue.

You are more than welcome to disagree or agree with that. Truthfully, I’m not saying one way or the other, just that it is interesting and is on its face meritorious.

I do find it hard to believe any court will say congress does not have authority to set qualifications on parameters and rule citizenship is a negative right.

 

[UsualName]

In appellate work one side typically argues the judge followed the law and applied the correct facts. (typically you can't argue fact finding on appeal.)

The side moving for the appeal has a choice.
1. The judge did not follow the law.
2. The law must change because its bad. (this is a tough one and leads to further litigation)
or

3. Carve out the fact pattern... distinguish the facts of your case from the previous cases thereby allowing the court to make new law (a new ruling) or limit the old ruling to narrow set of fact patterns... etc.

You win by getting new law or a "carve out" for your facts from the old line of cases.


Hence the court very easily carve all previous cases of citizenship.

Again, a theory and your opinion. Do you have a relevant example to back up this claim that scotus will carve out a constitutional protection creating two distinct classes with equal qualifications?

The last time I can think of this was Dred Scott and that is how we got here in the first place.

 

[Tony Stark]

Updates?

 

[Tony Stark]

What comes first? This or the wall?

 

[piezoe]

LONG OVERDUE!

We are one of the few countries on the face of the earth where simply by illegally invading our country your child becomes a citizen. This is absurd and it is time for it to end.

vast majority of Americans agree, of course. But it can't be done with an executive order!!! And thank god for that!
We need a President who understands how things must be done under the rule of law. Otherwise you don't have a democracy, as defective as that form of government is, you have an autocracy, which is even worse.