Trump preparing sweeping pardons for Jan. 6 defendants
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Donald Trump is preparing to issue a sweeping series of pardons for defendants charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol , including commuting the prison sentences of hundreds of his supporters who have been convicted of violent attacks against law enforcement, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
The planned commutations for those who attacked police goes well beyond what many of his allies anticipated he would be prepared to extend to the Jan. 6 defendants -- and paves the way for potentially hundreds of supporters, some sentenced to years behind bars for vicious assaults on police -- to be released in the coming days.
An incoming senior White House official did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.
In addition to the commutations, Trump plans to extend full pardons to his supporters who were not charged with engaging in violence on Jan. 6. Sources tell ABC News that some of Trump's top advisers have been pushing him for days to issue these sweeping pardons.
Sources also caution that until Trump formally signs the pardon paperwork, it's possible that the expected language could change or be scaled back.
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
there goes any deterrent for future insurrectionists
Apparently he is planning to release from prison people who violently attacked cops on jan 6.
It seems quite believable since he spoke like a lunatic in his second speech today.
cause he is
Did the author stop and think for a second how ridiculous this tweet was before posting it I wonder? Biden lied about how he would use the pardon power since he was elected and has done what he promised he wouldn't. The reality of what Biden has done and how it undercuts everything Democrats have claimed to oppose in Trump needs to set in soon to stop this ridiculousness.
How many of the people that Biden pardoned were in prison for attacking the Capitol of the USA?
Zero.
How many of the people that Trump pardoned in the Capitol kill someone?
Zero
Can't say that about Biden pardons.
So what is your complaint?
Oh, you have no complaint about freeing violent people who beat up cops? Ok.
As we've seen in the past few weeks, the Presidential pardon is almost limitless. As I said elsewhere, if there were no complaints over the pre-emptive pardons issued by Biden then there should be no complaints about any Trump pardons. Anything else is simple partisan bullshit.
Oh please, for Christ fucking sake. Trump is not pardoning these assholes because Biden pardoned anyone, Trump is pardoning them because he said he would, to keep his base intact. Trump has been saying this since the day he announced he was running again.
And again, so fucking what? Based on the precedent set by Biden, it doesn't matter at all. Hell, Joe said several times that his administration would not issue any pre-emptive pardons and then changed his mind. Why should you be upset if Trump said from the beginning what he would do and is now following thru.
You're trying to have it both ways and it doesn't work that way. The power of a presidential pardon is almost unlimited. As I said before, if you didn't complain about Biden's pardons then you really don't have a leg to stand on over this.
Trump pardoned his first term criminals Michael Flynn, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, and others, many years ago. So if you want to talk about precedent there is your precedent.
Lynn Cheney, Kinzinger, MIlley, and the others did nothing wrong, the J6 rioters did. That is one difference. The J6 committee did nothing wrong and threatening them with hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees so they defend themselves is disgusting.
And a man the the head of the FBI described as "a remorseless killer who brutally murdered two of our own before embarking on a violent flight from justice. … He is wholly unfit for parole. … Peltier is right where he belongs, serving consecutive life sentences for his cold-blooded murder."
Terrence Richardson and Ferrone Claiborne, known as the Waverly Two, originally pleaded guilty to killing Officer Allen Gibson in 1998. But their attorney claims they only made that plea to avoid the death penalty.
Drug charges were later added to make it a federal case. Both men were eventually acquitted of Gibson's murder by a federal jury, but they were convicted on the drug charges. That should have been a 10-year sentence but a judge — citing the original guilty plea — sentenced the pair to life in prison.
In 2021, a petition was filed in the Virginia Court of Appeals to overturn their state convictions and release both men. Then-Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring filed a motion in support . However, current Attorney General Jason Miyares later withdrew that support , postponing writ of innocence hearings for both men.
Who are the Waverly Two and why did Biden grant clemency to them?
That is debatable. However it needs to be pointed out that Trump's pardon of Flynn, Stone & Manafort was after they were tried, convicted and sentenced. So they already spent the money on legal fees.
But again, so fucking what? The power for a president to issue a pardon is almost unlimited. You continue to view this action thru partisan lenses and ignore everything else.
Please, tell us what Liz Cheney or Kinzinger did that was even remotely criminal. Threatening them with possible indictment is pure harassment from a madman.
Biden has set the new standard and abused the pardon power in a way that the founders would never have comprehended possible. They believed public servents would have some decency and honor. Biden proved them wrong.
This is what Franklin was talking about when said "a Republic, if you can keep it." Even the best designed system with fail when people with bad intentions and no integrity abuse it.
That will probably never be known as the committee destroyed a lot of the records when they ended. I think it should have been investigated. But it's funny (sad) that you're now against lawfare. Again, the partisan outlook is coloring your output.
Nope. Not true.
Ok, so it's just some video records of interviews and depositions that cannot be found.
And commutes violent criminals that killed children and mass murderers
Biden commutes death sentences of child killers and mass murderers 2 days before Christmas
Then why did Bennie thank Biden for giving him the pardon.
Don't use the excuse of the POSSIBILITY of something Trump might do
You have zero idea
www.rawstory.com /trump-liz-cheney-quote/
Liz Cheney claps back at Trump's 'lies' in post-inaugural speech
Jennifer Bowers Bahney 3-4 minutes 1/20/2025
January 20, 2025 4:58PM ET
Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) ripped President Donald Trump for lying about the investigation into the Jan. 6 riots when he spoke to supporters in Emancipation Hall following his inauguration on Monday.
Trump spoke "off the cuff" to those who gathered but couldn't attend his speech in the Capitol Rotunda. He told supporters there were many things he wanted to say in that speech but was advised against it.
"I was going to talk about the J6 hostages. But, you'll be happy, because, you know, it's action, not words that count. And you're going to see a lot of action on the J6 hostages," Trump said about the Capitol rioters he has pledged to pardon or whose sentences he wants to commute.
Trump continued, "And I was going to talk about the things that Joe did today with the pardons of people that were very, very guilty of very bad crimes. Like the "unselect" committee of political thugs. Where they literally, what they did was, they destroyed and deleted all of the information, all of the hearings. Practically not a thing left. They deleted all the information on Nancy Pelosi having turned down the offer of 10,000 soldiers...You don't see any photos. But we have a lot of great photos. But you don't see those photographs. They don't show the people at the Capitol. But I was talking about that, I was going to talk about that. They said please don't bring that up right now, you can bring it up tomorrow. I said, how about how? I'll bring it up right now."
Trump then lashed out at Cheney herself, who chaired the Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.
"Why are we helping Liz Cheney ? I mean, Liz Cheney is a disaster, she's a crying lunatic...Liz Cheney hated the concept of not going to war with everybody. Let's kill everybody, let's spend a lot of money on military equipment. You know where her father works, right? But what she did was incredible. Think of it, They destroyed and deleted all of that information that went on for almost two years against Trump. And the reason they did was because it was all false."
In response to Trump's comments, Cheney posted to social media , "Trump’s remarks in the Capitol Visitor Center today were a reminder that neither lies nor the liar who tells them get better with age . The Select Committee evidence is available on multiple websites and, as a criminal defendant, Donald Trump has had access to all the transcripts for years. Remember Trump’s character: He sat in his dining room watching on television as his supporters attacked our Capitol and brutally assaulted law enforcement. For hours, he refused to instruct the mob to leave. The truth will never change."
The pardon power is intended to right wrongs. . . and as we can see it can also 'fight fire with internal fire!' What has happened is a 'wild man' wanting to be unpredictable has taken the stage and only a fool would take the 50/50 chance of ruin just for his craps and giggles! Only a fool would trust a self-indulgent 'maniac's' word.
Well, it does depend on which side the "Patriot" is standing and facing. Eh?
Yes, he did after Peltier served close to 50 years with some of it being in solitary confinement. If Peltier had a fair trial, and the FBI didn’t pull their BS crap perhaps he would still be in prison, but their witnesses and lies were much the same after 1973 and Wounded Knee where only a few of the hundreds of cases they brought against Indians resulted in a guilty verdict.
Also throwing stones is a losing proposition, This is one of Trumps pardons that everyone seems to have forgotten about..
Maybe all the fucking idiots that elected to overcharge people would have been better off charging the people that committed violence and issued a simple trespass to the rest and this wouldn't have happened.
Before insulting 'idiots' please consider that it was a blanket pardon and though it was allowed, even Trump seems to be pretending it was his first 'hasty' decision. That is, not well thought out. Thus, the 'backlash.'
I am aware what the pardon involved, are you aware that people were overcharged?
According to who? The people who broke and entered into the capitol are lucky they werent shot.
That answer requires context as I am pretty sure I have not heard any validation that any were overcharged. If so, . . .that is what appeals are for in a court of law and judges. That is , the 'charge' is beyond the scope of what has been proven to be the case in any official capacity. After all, those sentenced were already serving their time. Any such consideration comes from those in charge of 'them' and not off the 'street.'
Should they have received a frequent Insurrectionist Riot Discount ?, cause we knew there would be a discount of watt was heard by the herd, as they were not a;llowed to watch the testimony,. and like good little Kool Aid Drinkers, they are ignorant to the facts.
WTF people, how can you come to a determination without hearing all of the evidence? It' is fckn ridiculous
There are people >here< who openly declare they do not listen to any one other themselves in coming to conclusion of their ideas and opinions. . . but discernment tells informs us differently after reading their thoughts. . . .
Didn't you complain when Biden pardoned people?
So what was your complaint?
Do go back over my postings and find where I complained about the pardons. I had questions around them but I didn't complain. In fact I stated that the pardon privilege for a president is almost unlimited.
Imagine being a Biden defender and complaining about pardons. Lol.
Did you see Trumps second speech? He's mentally ill and everyone with intelligence knows it.
What does Trump's speech have to do with Democrats incredible hypocrisy over pardons?
When Trump was talking about pardoning the J6 rioters if he got back in office, which he has been doing for a couple years, I dont remember you objecting on this forum. You have no credibility.
I've said it before, I don't think those who attacked police should be pardoned. The blatant double standards applied by the Biden DOJ to left wing protestors and the creation of a two tiered system of justice for protesters doesn't justify the pardon of violent criminals, to me. Although it's increasingly hard to argue with the opposing view given the double standards. As with so much else, Biden's corruption and abuse of pardons for political and selfish purposes has damaged the justice system.
Those who essentially trespassed should not have been prosecuted by the federal government to begin with.
The presumption can be made that even the non violent ones entered with the intention to try and disrupt the electoral count. That is why the mob stormed the building.
What sentence is appropriate for those people is up to the judicial system.
I believe that Trump is planning to pardon those J6 protestors who were convicted of non-violent crimes. If that's where it ends then the bitching really should stop.
The seeded story based on ABC News says violent offenders will also be released. I guess we will have to wait and see.
I don't care who Trump pardons (its his right under the constitution) let him. If it is abused (again) by this president and any other president then the public will have to decide if it should be an allowance - constitutionally amended.
There is too much talk and long discussion by presidents and congresses about things that languish and never come to pass. . . . If you say you will fix problems in our society (between the various federal branches) or just shut up when it fails from neglect or corruptions.
Musk was greeted with enthusiastic applause from MAGA Republicans in the arena. But something he did with right arm is drawing biting comments on the social media platform that he owns: X, formerly Twitter.
After thanking the Trump supporters in the crowd, Musk placed his right hand on his chest before lifting his arm in what some X users are comparing to a Nazi salute.
Journalist Oscar Gonzalez remarked , "Going to see a few more of these salutes soon enough."
Eric Feigl-Ding of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI) tweeted , "My god… Musk just did the N*zi Salute live on TV."
'What did he just do?' Elon Musk sends hate groups 'buzzing' with 'Roman salute' at Trump rally - Alternet.org
Oh, give it up for pity's sake!
I don't know exactly what Musk is doing (is it deliberate insult or just a wave) but if it is insult then Jews will be the first to feel its impact. We should 'pity sake' for them. Now it is telling that PC came to be, because there is always somebody out there who is willing to try the patience of another's tolerance for being openly insulted and potentially injured by their callous, questionable, and inconsiderate acts.
Why would the world's richest man want to be spectacle on the evening news 'regularly'? It is just beyond the pail. Most truly wealthy people enjoy their privacy (and that of their family) out of the hot-heat of politics.
How is it to the benefit of the country to have wealthy people stirring up political strife for the masses? How?
ADL Defends Elon Musk’s Gesture, Denies It Was a Nazi Salute [Video]
The hypocrisy of complaining about Trumps nonexistent pardons after Biden’s actual pardons isn’t even surprising anymore. That is the saddest thing.
He just pardoned all the Jan. 6th criminals. How is that non-existent?
I read 1500 of them , havent looked at his pardon document yet .
Still not as many as Biden pardoned. Far from it.
Trump didn’t pardon any murderers……Biden did
Don't bring Fauci and his research into gain of function into this.
I think you are using the word (presidential) "pardon" loosely. Please clarify and remove any confusion.
TRUMP SUFFERS TRAGIC TEMPORARY PARALYSIS
Unable To Lift Hand Onto Bible.
Maybe he was appealing to atheists? Because much like most presidents they worship only themselves.
Start the impeachment proceedings! S/
Yeah, eff it up right out the 'gate'! Midterms are coming. Oh damn! Every two years an election cycle comes. Damn it! /s
Who is the dude in the hat to his left?
He looks Amish.
That’s the first lady. She speaks 6 languages. I noticed obama wasn’t escorted by his standing bitch faced offensive lineman, i wonder why?
She knows Trump is a piece of human garbage thats why.
Lineman. Okay. Got it. The mother of two beautiful daughters, the first (and only) lady of color of our country is deserving of respect - certainly from the self-righteous so-called, "defenders" of gender classification for 'all' the country! To persist in abusing her on social media for stupid political savagery is beyond the pail.
The incoming first lady deserves respect too!
Or maybe she’s jealous? Barack won’t be pulling the strings anymore.
It looks like a severe male model who’s got a kink for sadistic old men.
Oh no, a transgender next to ..... !
As long as his right hand was raised as instructed by the one giving the oath of office , thats all that matters .
There is no requirement to have a hand on any religious book , though i do remember reading he had both his mothers bible and the Lincoln bible present .
"Christian" Trump would not make a profession of faith in public today. MAGA is ASHAMED of the Gospel of Jesus. This is a moral 'mistake.' A perfection demonstration of the sham of selling bibles (which attempt to tie Jesus to politics - another shame), and yet even Trump could bring himself to 'do' it.
Let's end this farce that Trump is a Christian, he had bibles in his proximity for the swearing in, but he would not touch them. It's a farce people and so-called, "evangelicals" bought it . . .and Trump.
then why bring them? Photo-op? I wouldn't ever put my hand on a Bible and swear an oath "so help me God" but I'm an atheist. trmp claims to be a Christian? Why doesn't have his hand on the Bible?
Story i read was that Chief Justice Roberts got a little ahead of himself and started administering the oath before everyone was in place and rather than interrupt or start over , continued as he did .
wouldnt be the first time he has been accused of goofing it , i remember he had to give the oath to another president twice because he goofed the first try in public .
Well, it's not like he does every day
It would be nice if Christians would profess their faith in public Be not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Btw, Jesus would forgive. So. . . Trump has expressed intentions at retribution and lawfair of his own. Moreover, I have read comments from several people here - whom must not be Christians since they don't profess to be - wanting to see lawfare carried out against their opposition. Be not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Profess!
It’s kind of hard to agree or disagree with it when he hasn’t even done it yet. Whatever he decides to do, he has the constitutional right to do it.
Just like Biden did.
Did he have the Constitutional right to forgive student loans?
SCOTUS said no.
Pardons have what to do with student loans?
Not a fucking thing, but that doesn’t stop some folks.
A pardon is a pardon...............
And the payment or default on student loans is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
It's still illegal as proven by the SCotUS. The criminal matter is the fact that it wouldn't be legal to do so.
Presidents and Congress try all sorts of things that end up being ruled unconstitutional. The law is not really considered “established” until that happens, so characterizing it as “illegal” when it was done isn’t really accurate. It was most certainly not criminal.
But the topic is not just anything you can imagine. The topic is pardons. The president explicitly holds the power to pardon federal crimes. This is in the Constitution and has been subject to SCOTUS review several times.
So defaulting on a student loan, even by the PotUS "forgiving" it, isn't fraud against the feds? He is bypassing all norms to pull this shit. It was a popularity stunt pure and simple to win the young vote—kind of like election tampering.
Maybe try googling “elements of fraud.” Or search the US Code. Fraud has a definition. An act of the president isn’t fraud just because you don’t like that president.
And even if it were, the president would be immune from prosecution. You can thank Trump for that.
No.
Irrelevant.
Probably, but still legal except where the SCOTUS said the original funding mechanism was misapplied. Going back and finding legal means is not fraud, nor criminal. Just like Trump end around Congress to fund his wall building during his last term was not fraud, or criminal, but still bypassing all the norms to pull his popularity stunt.
First Supreme Court challenge, can the president end birthright citizenship for illegals?
If so, his son and wife better start packing.
Right…..because Trump isn’t an American citizen.
That's gonna bounce around the courts for years I'm willing to bet. One has to wonder if it will be settled before Trump ends his term. I'm conflicted on the decision myself but I'm sure it will be grist for the media for a long time. I expect a lot of hair pulling and screaming before it's over.
All it needs is one case to make it to the USSC for them to decide . So how long is also up in the air .
factor in the current make up of the court and some of their past decisions and willingness to set aside precedent, which for this issue has a crap ton of ., it will definitely be interesting . .
Already 21 states have filed suit as well as immigration groups.
Almost everything these days should come with a trigger warning. The left is triggered when Trump does anything and the right is triggered when the Dems do anything... it's a fucking clickbait circus.
Well if any of those suits goes the complete route , my thoughts are its going to hinge on 6 words in section 1 and what the court says they mean , and how they apply .
like i sad they already have other cases to review on the issue , as well as congressional statements made by Bingham ,Trunbull and Howard when the amendment was written and what it meant when the amendment was first voted on during reconstruction in 1866..
This is a planned attack upon the 14th amendment to change it and have it neutered or completely bereft of its current power. People see the scheme. SCOTUS is already PRIMED (6 majority) to reinterpret laws on behalf of ONE SIDE OF THE COUNTRY: Conservatism.
REMEMBER: It is this Chief Justice Roberts who has stated:
The role of the judicial branch,” Roberts wrote, is “to say what the law is.”
But, he added, “judicial independence is undermined unless the other branches are firm in their responsibility to enforce the court’s decrees. ”
(Bottom of the link.)
And that court majority/power is now firmly in the hands of 6 conservative justices.
People best WAKE UP AND ACT to save the country you know and love.
It doesn't sound ambiguous. All persons born in the US are citizens of the US. Senator Howard said this in statements - (bolding mine)
Evil - would recommend you include the entire comments by Sen's Howard and Cohen - specifically where he states:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word ..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
In essence, the Original intent of the 14 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14 th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14 th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction , is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14 th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14 th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e) . Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14 th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14 th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense.
The 6 words i refer to of course are , " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the meaning of which can be debated as to how far it can go .
But at the time of the amendments creation US Sen Trumbull (Illinois) stated what was meant :
Trumbull stated that "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
I think one can see why in my opinion this could get very interesting .
An interesting point of note i noticed was that all 3 of the reconstruction era amendments (13th, 14th , and 15th) have a final clause ," The congress shall have power to enforce , by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article " . That is not seen in any of the other amendments before , and only twice since , the 24th and 26th .
Is someone who was not born here.
How is that determined given they are newborn babies?
As you well know Elk v Wilkins was about NA citizenship and overturn when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1929.
Are you trying to tell me that people leaving behind poverty and violence don't want to give direct and immediate allegiance to the US?
And Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Acts in 1882 once the oligarchy was done with their labor on the railroads. They didn't need poor Chinese farmers anymore and people used various tactics to harass, imprison and deport and kill them. Much like they do poor brown people from Central American countries now.
Are you saying an EO statement signed by an asshole for a President is a good basis for denying rights and due process for anyone for any reason?
It most certainly will.
That would probably prohibit an asshole President from enforcing an EO statement and likely why we have things like the Indian Citizen Act.
I believe because neither parents are citizens, therefore, have jurisdiction of other countries.
"Are you trying to tell me that people leaving behind poverty and violence don't want to give direct and immediate allegiance to the US?"
Possible but highly doubtful. Most that come here illegally come here for economic reasons, and send money back to their home countries.
"Are you saying an EO statement signed by an asshole for a President is a good basis for denying rights and due process for anyone for any reason?"
I believe the good intentions are there, but it will be dragged through the court and end up at the Supreme Court.
What you believe of other people you haven't met is highly irrelevant.
First back the statement up with some facts, second it's not really a suitable recommendation of patriotism in a representative democracy. Unless you then support those undocumented that don't send money to families in the county of origin.
Fucking over fellow human beings through no fault of their own has no good intentions. Actually forcing Congress to fix a broken immigration system might though.
It could be debated , but EO's carry the same weight as laws passed by the legislature . the loop hole i see there is the executive is not the legislative branch .
As for the ICA of 1924(not 1929), it didnt negate any cases that came before its enactment , it simply set new parameters for the courts to consider going forward. If i remember correctly an NA was considered a citizen based on tax status , did they pay taxes or not , if they had left the tribe or not , and a few other things i do not recall..`
Now the ICA would be an example of that last clause i mentioned that the legislature could do .
I also think that if this side discussion is to continue , maybe a new seed should be created so as to not disrupt Johns , i feel he has been more than generous to allow what has already been posted .
Not even close! EO are directives used to execute law. They do not rewrite law nor supersede law, which is why the Trump Admin is being sued as now some 22 states are taking issue.
Yeah, that's how new laws generally work.
I agree.
Okay.
Also, EOs are only applicable for the executive (federal) branch. They have no authority beyond it.
Trump made a mistake. Instead of issuing an executive order, he should just announce a new amendment to the Constitution like Biden did. Those pesky ratification requirements no longer apply. A number of liberal congressmen, law professors and even Kamala Harris believe a President can create a new amendment by tweeting it into existence, so Trump declaring a new amendment should have bipartisan support.