re: Reagan era judges shoots down Trump 14th amendment EO

quote:

---

This is the "The Founders drafted the 2A for muskets" argument.

---

No it isn't. It's the I wonder if the framers of the 14th Amemdment ever considered that crossing the American border could have legal conditions under law argument.

“This is blatantly unconstitutional.”

Bingo! US Supreme Court here we come. It’s time for a ruling once and for all. Is it or isn’t it?

quote:

---

It's the I wonder if the framers of the 14th Amemdment ever considered that crossing the American border could have legal conditions under law argument.

---

The people writing the 14th amendment were more aware of immigrants than the people writing the 2nd amendment were aware of automatic rifles and school shootings.


You want have your cake or do you wanna eat it?

The framers never considered our enemies flying their citizens here just to have babies.

Can’t blame them. The blame lies with the leftists unwilling to fix the problem.

quote:

---

How is the concept being in existence before Congress existed relevant?

---

How is Congress codifying it relevant?

quote:

---

It didn't require codification? That's absurd.

---

Not at all.

quote:

---

You have never and will never be able to explain that.

---

It's fairly simple. Did diplomatic immunity exist in the geographic area of the US prior to codification by Congress? Yes.

quote:

---

And ignored any other quotes that undermine another absurd point you try to make.

---

Not at all. You're using examples outside of legislative intent and claiming it's legislative intent. An untruth can never be true.

quote:

---

He specifically says that interpretation of the constitution should be made by what the constitution meant at the time it was adopted. He used plenty of contemporary sources to find that meaning (dictionaries and the Federalist Papers, etc...). Even when interpreting something as far back as 200 years ago.

---

Yes. None of that is legislative intent.

quote:

---

But wasn't opposed to determining intent, that wouldn't make sense.

---

Again, already explained. He used the same reasoning we see in Wong Kim Ark, going to legal sources like the common law and its history.

quote:

---

Here he is explaining how important the Federalist Papers

---

Again, you cite another example of non-legislative items to try to counter my point that he did not believe in relying on legislative intent.

You try to insult my legal analysis but can't even use words properly. I said "legislative intent" and you keep giving examples outside of the legislative intent, to counter my comment.

quote:

---

No it isn't.

---

Yes it is. It's based in the same "changing of society they didn't anticipate" basis.

quote:

---

It's the I wonder if the framers of the 14th Amemdment ever considered that crossing the American border could have legal conditions under law argument.

---

Congress cannot overrule a Constitutional Amendment.

Congress creating a class of persons that are "illegal" can't usurp the Constitution and decrease its power. Congress CAN do the opposite and create classes of persons eligible for citizenship above this Constitutional baseline, however.

quote:

---

If Congress can't constrict citizenship, then it doesn't have plenary power.

---

Congress cannot constrict citizenship beyond the Constitutional baseline.

It has all the plenary power to expand citizenship beyond this minimum.

quote:

---

So which is it?

---

You're attempting to create a conflation that doesn't exist in reality

quote:

---

The power of naturalization, vested in congress by the constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. 'A naturalized citizen,' said Chief Justice Marshall, 'becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.' Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of congress, a fortiori no act or omission of congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

---

This is why the "Congress needs to pass the law and we win" arguments don't work, also.

quote:

---

The framers never considered our enemies flying their citizens here just to have babies.

---

What do framers have to do with this discussion?

What does a changing society have to do with a legal precedent? That's the argument for a Living Constitution.

quote:

---

Do you not think they would differentiate between Ark and a Mexican national who crossed the border illegally 1 day before birth?

---

Why would they?

WKA is clear there are only 2 exceptions to birthright citizenship:

1. Children of diplomats

2. Children born in areas of hostile occupation (which was about Indians and the potential for another War of 1812, but is not relevant today as there hasn't been an occupation on US soil since the War of 1812).

Which of those 2 classes do illegal aliens fall under?

quote:

---

Only the intellectually dishonest can claim that these scenarios are the same and therefore the U.S. govt should confer citizenship on both the child of a domiciled Chinese couple that own a business in the U.S. and a Mexican girl who gives birth on the north bank of the Rio Grande after entering the U.S. illegally.

---

Which of the 2 above classes does that "Mexican girl who gives birth on the north bank of the Rio Grande" fall within?

Is she a diplomat? No

Is that area of the US occupied by a foreign nation where the birth occurred? No

quote:

---

It's fairly simple. Did diplomatic immunity exist in the geographic area of the US prior to codification by Congress? Yes.

---

Did freedom of speech exist in the geographic area of the US prior to codification(ratification) by Congress? Yes.

Does that mean that free speech didn't need to codified?

quote:

---

How is Congress codifying it relevant?

---

Congress makes laws. If the founders thought it wasn't necessary, they wouldn't have codified it. That seems simple enough.

quote:

---

Yes. None of that is legislative intent.

---

How do you determine the intent of a law without determining the intent of the people who wrote that law? They're the same thing. The authors used their words intentionally and he was determined to find out what words were used, what they meant at that time and what the people using them understood themselves to be doing.

quote:

---

Again, you cite another example of non-legislative items to try to counter my point that he did not believe in relying on legislative intent.

---

He says quite plainly that the Federalist Papers are important because they give insight into the intent of the founders.

quote:

---

You try to insult my legal analysis but can't even use words properly. I said "legislative intent" and you keep giving examples outside of the legislative intent, to counter my comment.

---

As I said above they're the same thing. How do you determine the intent of a law without determining the intent of the people who wrote that law? They're the same thing.

Here's Scalia discussing the 14th Amendment and its equal protection clause and whether it prohibits sexual discrimination.

"nobody ever thought that's what it meant, nobody every voted for that"

"Nobody" is clearly congress, the people who voted to ratify the amendment. If you disagree that he's weighing the intent of the legislature here, your legal opinions deserve to be called out.