Angry Toddler Trump Screws Soldiers Stationed Overseas

Clearly the Founding Fathers did not intend for the Constitution to be a "living document" changing with the whims of leaders and citizens.

That is why they included Article V to provide a means of amending the Constitution in a thoughtful deliberate manner:

"Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Yes, you're making my point. They provided a mechanism by which it could be amended. And you're grossly misrepresenting the process when you talk about "whims." The process is deliberate, prolonged, and when enacted, reflects the will of a substantial majority of the electorate.

Since Mark has now stated it twice, I can only assume he is lying about it.

Mark wrote: "They are children of U.S. citzens serving in the military."

The children of US Citizens ARE NOT AFFECTED. It is only children whose parents are not US citizens that are affected. Everything I quoted in my first post is in the military times link.

The article you cited in the Military Times gave these two examples of children that would not be granted citizenship.

A U.S. service member and partner, or a dual-military couple, stationed in South Korea, who adopt a local South Korean child; or,

A non-citizen U.S. service member and partner, or non-citizen dual-military couple, who have a child while serving in Germany.

Again, Bob, what is the point of punishing these children?

Because Trumpie-poo is angry that he can't deny citizenship to everybody! No other justification is needed.

Sweet Old Bob, it looks like Mark is correct; one of the examples he quoted involves a parent who IS a US citizen.

Even if Mark was wrong, though, it would still be a shitty, crass, childish act to call him a liar. His essential point was that this move by Trump is pointless, negatively affects children who haven't done anything wrong, and was made out of spite when Trump was told he couldn't just unilaterally revoke birthright citizenship. That point is valid regardless of the details of Trumphole's decree.

Really, Bob, do you see any societal benefit in denying citizenship to children of military members?