Litigation is a certainty, Trump: end birthright citizenship

I'm so sick of this America-hating douchebag and his followers.
I'm so tired of him/them constantly attacking our Constitution, or Republic, our rights.
I despise him, specifically, for fondling and kissing our flag like it's someone's teenage daughter.
There is so much more they plan than just ending birthright citizenship. So much more.

The problem with that, Nixon, is that getting rid of birthright citizenship has been part of the GOP platform since 2016 (maybe before that, too, I just don't remember). Now they've got control over the Supreme Court. We may all want to believe it's obvious and decided, but the 2nd got completely redefined in the late 70's and by 1981 the GOP"discovered" the "true" meaning the founders "intended." www.brennancenter.org

I can find a hole in what you've quoted already, which is "and are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If Trump gets elected again he will push this through and force SCOTUS to decide. The question is will he have Congress to back him. This is a long game they've been playing and this has been high on their list.

That along side of (and i'm not responsible for their total lack of irony) giving a fetus 14th amendment full citizenship.

(yeah, I know. Conflicting agendas)

I don't make this stuff up. There's no need for me to do that. I just quote what the GOP says, what they put in print.
I did tell you where to look for it:

The Fifth Amendment: Protecting Human Life

The Constitution's guarantee that no one can "be deprived of life, liberty or property" deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence's proclamation that "all" are "endowed by their Creator" with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to children before birth.

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

I've argued the same here before.
Just to be clear, I've always believed that is what our Constitution says.
That is why I said what I said.
I am consistent.

Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If they want to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment is applied to children and to the unborn, then a fetus is granted citizenship under the 14th, not just for being born here, but for being conceived on US soil.

If they want to apply only part of the 14th to the unborn, then they have to modify the 14th. You can't do that except by SCOTUS or another amendment (which they said they want to do).

If they want to get rid of birthright citizenship as specified in the 14th AND protect the fetus using the same amendment, then they have a problem. As I said that would require SCOTUS finding that the parents have, as Trump said no "legal status." Which then sets up a conundrum of "is the fetus, conceived in the US, granted legal status, or is the "illegal status" conferred to the fetus?

Clarifying that would require another amendment and a sympathetic SCOTUS.

SCOTUS could split this by using the "AND" and declaring that the parents, or just the mother are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because, as Trump said they have no "legal status" but hold the fetus is protected under the laws and jurisdiction, but not the parents. That would be another right-wing religious activist MESS.

And then you have the issue of "Well the father is a US Citizen and the mother is undocumented."

The entire thing is utterly ridiculous to me and seriously messed up, legally, morally, and logically. It's insane to me.

That's all I was pointing out. But hey, you got a chuckle out of me posting the RNC's plank, so there's that.

The 14th states that if you're born here, you're a US citizen.
The RNC wants to confer the protections of the 14th onto the fetus, just like a child that was born here.
You think they can do that without conferring citizenship.
That takes a rewriting of the 14th, or SCOTUS reinterpreting the 14th.
That's why the RNC says they support another amendment. This is just talk. A positioning. A stand.

The point being that the GOP already did this without needing another amendment by using SCOTUS.
Like they did with the 2nd.
Like they did with Roe V Wade.

The point I've made just isn't that complicated.

"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to children before birth."

#21 - Exactly. You can't call out the 14th and pretend you can divide up what it says. If you don't repeal the 14th's birthright citizenship, you can't apply just the protections of it. The entire thing is stupid. And as I said, once you do that then we have to investigate where that union of the sperm and egg happened.

These people are morons.