re: NJ challenging EO to end birth right citizenship

quote:

---

You just keep trying to shoehorn in legislative intent (and then defend this point by using examples of Scalia specifically NOT using legislative intent).

---

So when Scalia says "...nobody ever thought that's what it meant, nobody ever voted for that"

That's not germane to his understanding of the 14th Amendment? That's not relevant to his idea of originalism?

quote:

---

No it isn’t. It relies on English Common Law

---

To explain what the meaning of the text was.

That's the goal of textualist analysis.

quote:

---

Limited immunity is purely a Congressional function.

Diplomatic immunity existed in the America prior to Congress existing.

Both are factually correct statements.

---

That's not the point.

You conclude the argument by stating that I'm wrong and that "it's not a creation of Congress..."

Which I, in no way, ever even hinted at. That's the sort of shite that drives people crazy.

quote:

---

To explain what the meaning of the text was

---

The intent of the text

quote:

---

That's not the point.

---

PIVOT

quote:

---

You conclude the argument by stating that I'm wrong and that "it's not a creation of Congress..."

---

If it existed prior to Congress, how could Congress create it?

quote:

---

Which I, in no way, ever even hinted at.

---

You tried to use a Congressional distinction (the white v. blue list) as some gotcha. I went into the statutes to show that the limited immunity portion is non-applicable to discussing WKA, and their children are US citizens (As they're subject to our jurisdiction, even if limited somewhat). The portion given full immunity are the same class discussed in WKA, with the same effects of having children on our soil.

Then you pivoted

quote:

---

The intent of the text

---

No, the text itself.

Fun fact #3: children born of foreign nationals from an invading or occupying army are not citizens - even if they are deserters or they surrender.

Ju Soli is not unqualified

You never responded to this from your link:

quote:

---

8 FAM 301.1-4 birth in u.s. internal WATERS and TERRITORIAL Sea

(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)

a. Persons born on ships located within U.S. internal waters (except as provided in 8 FAM 301.1-3) are considered to have been born in the United States. Such persons will acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Internal waters include the ports, harbors, bays, and other enclosed areas of the sea along the U.S. coast. As noted above, a child born on a foreign merchant ship or privately owned vessel in U.S. internal waters is considered as having been born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.)

---

quote:

---

children born of foreign nationals from an invading or occupying army are not citizens - even if they are deserters or they surrender.

---

That's the 2nd exception of WKA, which hasn't had any applicability since the War of 1812 (as there has been no hostile occupation of US soil since).

Again for the kids in the back.


We think Wong is bullshite.

quote:

---

I have given you SPECIFIC quotes directly addressing legislative intent from actual court cases, both from Scalia and his progeny, Clarence Thomas.

Not a speech to a group, but his actual rulings/opinions in actual cases.

---

Ok here's his dissent in Obergefell.

quote:

---

But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—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.

---