re: Listening to SCOTUS Birthright argument: WE ARE FRICKED

quote:

---

so we are bound by their incomplete wisdom to predict the future

but at the same time you hold that they would totally agree with any interpretations modern leftists want to choose for the words they used to frame their actual intent???

So new concepts can be introduced to the benefit of one party and opposing parties have to suffer the consequences ??

---

This is word for word how leftists try to weaken the 2A, fwiw. "The founders never could've imagined AR-15s so we need to revisit if it actually applies in 2026"

quote:

---

This is word for word how leftists try to weaken the 2A,

---

Correct

It's the "they only intended the 2A to apply to muskets" nonsense

You know the founders left us with a mechanism for changing the Constitution. Part of the genius of it.

We need to fix this with a constitutional amendment.

Unfortunately, the document says what it says.

On this court you have 3 liberals who will say anything but the rest are a combination of originalists and textualists.

The originalists will be sympathetic to the original meaning argument. I believe it's the correct position.

A textualist like Kavanaugh certainly agrees with the originalists position but it's trumped by his belief that the Constitution says what it says and it says if you are born here you are a citizen.

Trump needs to push for a constitutional amendment.

quote:

---

. What other jurisdiction is that baby subject to? The baby has never lived anywhere else.

---

The parents country of origin.....

Kagan just dragging Wang along.....yes, yes that right.

"But then again, Republicans don't want to work to solve problems. They thrive and campaign on emotional outrage. That is the only thing they sell these days."

I would apply this at least equally to Democrats, but leaving aside who is more at fault, I do agree that we are stuck in a cycle in which the only thing politically important for all but a few in the House or Senate is not to be outflanked to the left for Dems or to the right for R's. As much as I would hate to see it, we may have reached the stage at which the filibuster is no longer worth it. The change would come at great cost, as it would likely result in much wilder policy swings, but at least the party in power (assuming they have the presidency and both houses of Congress) would be responsible for laws that actually get passed instead of being able to point the finger to the obstructionist party in the Senate. For example, the R's are largely freed from any responsibility to repeal, replace, or fix the mess that it is the ACA because they don't have 60 votes in the Senate. Maybe, and I stress "maybe," we are better off if they had to "own it."

quote:

---

That the original intent of the 14th Amendment could not have been to allow birthright citizenship as a part of the formal immigration process.

---

The fact that congress didn’t anticipate an issue with their law doesn’t change their lawZ

they couldn’t have anticipated school shooting when they wrote the 2nd or a standing professional army with a 800 billion dollar budget or semiautomatic weapons or free slaves.

But that amendment is still there as they intended it.

quote:

---

or an invading army.

---

Have I got good news for you!