re: A very good article on the true meaning of the 14th Amendment

quote:

---

That's a complete lie,

---

I have receipts to prove it's not

quote:

---

I never quoted that.

---

You curated it out of my post. Your curated quote:



The actual post



I clearly said "legislative history" not "legislative intent". You can't curate what I said and then change it into your own words. THAT, is a complete lie.

quote:

---

I intentionally ignored that part of the quote for a reason.

---

Oh so you ignored my use of "legislative history" only to them comment on my use of "legislative intent"? Got it. Much honesty.

quote:

---

You've made the claim that Scalia ignored the intent of the legislature for days

---

The legislative history.

quote:

---

ou can't take quotes out of context, the full quote is necessary to understand his point.

---

The full quote makes my argument adn disputes your argument. I already told you this.

quote:

---

The evidence suggests that, despite frequent statements to the contrary, we do not really look for subjective legislative intent. We look for a sort of "objectified" intent-the intent that a reasonable person would gather from the text of the law, placed alongside the remainder of the corpus juris.

---

The corpus juris, which is specifically not the legislative history.

It's the body of law at the time, like the common law specifically analyzed in WKA.

quote:

---

"[T]he primary object of all rules for interpreting statutes is to ascertain the legislative intent; or, exactly, the meaning which the subject is authorized to understand the legislature intended."16 And the reason we adopt this objectified version is, I think, that it is simply incompatible with democratic government, or indeed, even with fair government, to have the meaning of a law determined by what the lawgiver meant, rather than by what the lawgiver promulgated.

---

The text matters only, based around the body of law.

That is my argument in a nutshell

quote:

---

And what objectified version have we adopted?

---

One based around the body of law.

Why do you keep leaving that part out?

I really have no idea how this will go, and it seems to be a topic ripe for robust discussion and review.

That being said, you are acting like the off-the-cuff opinion of one judge, who’s been in the same court for 43 years (ie, never moved up the chain) is sacrosanct.

quote:

---

you are acting like the off-the-cuff opinion of one judge, who’s been in the same court for 43 years (ie, never moved up the chain) is sacrosanct.

---

It was a very confidently worded ruling. I wonder how often something like that is overturned. Not because of the wording, but because of the strongly held confidence in the law supporting it.

I've laid out arguments that could be (and IMO should be) applied. But given the long standing birthright precedent, I'd give no better than 1-in-20 odds of SCOTUS finding in favor of the EO.

quote:

---

Analysis based on objective legislative intent examines only the words written in the law along with the other words used in that body of law. At no point does textualism give a rat's arse about what the legislator might have written or might have expressed or might have intended. It looks only at what is written. Textualism looks only at the text.

---

I have no disagreement here except that you're confusing my point. (edit: I'm not sure if you're confusing my point, it seems we're in agreement on Scalia's use of only analyzing the intent of the words on the page. And the theory he rejects is the common law judge's practice of subjective legislative intent. I'll leave my post unedited beyond this.)

Scalia did not care what "might" have been expressed or intended, total agreement. He says no one can say "the legislature said up but meant down".

Scalia did care about what was expressed and intended. What did the people mean when they wrote the statute is an interpretation of their expressed intent.

He expresses that clearly in his dissent in Obergefell

quote:

---

it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.

---

quote:

---

In this instance, the Ark-based argument holds that anyone born on US soil, save offspring of diplomats or occupying enemies, are citizens.

Except that contention is simply not true.
The assertional flaw relates to treatment of native Americans in the quarter century following Ark. Native Americans born on US soil (away from the reservation) meet all your supposed qualifiers, yet were denied BRC.

---

NC this is what I have been arguing most of my life about BRC. You said it better than I have done in the past. I hope I have permission to use your words in the future. My grandpa was born a non-citizen then granted citizenship even though his parents did not live on a reservation but lived in south Louisiana working in the cotton and sugarcane fields. So this is why when in US history class in highschool I could never understand the blatant miss use of this amendment's wording. If what they say is true then why wasn't my grandpa given BRC upon being born in south Louisiana.

quote:

---

excluding Indians not taxed

---

Can we extrapolate that to remove the voting rights of citizens who have no tax liability??? Please.

Meant to add that if Congress passed a law saying only those born to a current citizen ir those born to a person with a permanent residence status (domicile in the WKA case) then there is better than decent chance scotus upholds it

quote:

---

That being said, you are acting like the off-the-cuff opinion of one judge, who’s been in the same court for 43 years (ie, never moved up the chain) is sacrosanct.

---

You ignore the context. John Eastman comes up with bad theories that, when argued in court, are so dishonest they have violated the rules of professional conduct. That judge was just pointing it out nicely to the attorney arguing Eastman's theory.

quote:

---

Before the 1924 Indian Act, native Americans were that example. The rationale for birthright exclusion held that they were not fully under U.S. jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes, not solely to the United States. That rationale obviously would apply to illegals as well.

---

quote:

---

NC_Tigah

---

In the 100 threads since Monday you are the only one who rationally argued against birthright citizenship IMO. I think your position about Native Americans being excluded raises some questions.

I would argue though that Native Americans are distinguishible, and always have been, in their treatment under US law. Given that the reservations are sovereign terrority the children born on them were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US in the way a child born off the reservation would be. Same as a child born in Mexico as opposed to inside the US. Thus the 1924 Indian Act was needed to bring children born on the reservation to be brought in as to also be under the jurisdiction for birthright citizenship purposes.

Children born off the reservation not being included is a counter I don't have a rebutal to at the moment.