- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The 14th Amendment needs to be read by courts in context (re: birthright citizenship)
Posted on 8/29/19 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 8/29/19 at 3:47 pm
The drafters of the 14th Amendment in no way intended for it to mean for anchor babies and citizenship because you happen to be born on US soil, despite the fact the child and the parents have no ties to the US.
This amendment was passed solely for the reason of ensuring that African Americans, now emancipated from Democrat slave holders, will now have citizenship as Americans since they were no longer property.
That's it. Any other interpretation is mumbo jumbo. It's one of the three amendments passed during Reconstruction to address issues of the Civil War.
This amendment was passed solely for the reason of ensuring that African Americans, now emancipated from Democrat slave holders, will now have citizenship as Americans since they were no longer property.
That's it. Any other interpretation is mumbo jumbo. It's one of the three amendments passed during Reconstruction to address issues of the Civil War.
4
Posted on 8/29/19 at 3:52 pm to Parmen
quote:This does not matter.
The drafters of the 14th Amendment in no way intended
quote:And sometimes, the law.
Any other interpretation is mumbo jumbo.
This post was edited on 8/29/19 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 8/29/19 at 4:02 pm to Parmen
If I were an Originalist, I would probably have to agree that it is more likely than not that you are correct. But as a Textualist, I cannot do so. Originalism is just too subjective to use as one’s primary approach to Constitutional or statutory interpretation.
Words mean what they mean, unless they are ambiguous. There is not ambiguity in the words of the 14A vis-a-vis birthright citizenship.
Words mean what they mean, unless they are ambiguous. There is not ambiguity in the words of the 14A vis-a-vis birthright citizenship.
This post was edited on 8/29/19 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 8/29/19 at 4:12 pm to Parmen
And then the 2nd, within the context of muskets...
Posted on 8/29/19 at 5:22 pm to Parmen
quote:
The 14th Amendment needs to be read by courts in context (re: birthright citizenship)
quote:
The drafters of the 14th Amendment in no way intended for it to mean for anchor babies and citizenship because you happen to be born on US soil, despite the fact the child and the parents have no ties to the US.
The courts have never had the chance to make this interpretation. This interpretation began in earnest through the executive branch. IIRC it was the Nixon State Department that started birth right citizenship and has continued through subsequent administrations. Before that it was a non-issue.
The interpenetration can be changed by any president.
Then it can be properly challenged if someone feels harmed.
ETA: SCOTUS did hear a case where the parents were LEGAL immigrants. Offspring of ILLEGAL immigrants has never been heard.
This post was edited on 8/29/19 at 5:25 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News