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

you are correct, and i did go back and look for more detail. context is everything. ie no surprise fdr has the most given his 4 terms and the state of the country. i expect wartime and two term presidents to have more as well.
i guess a better way to phrase it is imo they're used now for more petty shite than doing the hard work of legislation

quote:

---

First, the underlined facts are irrelevant to the Court's analysis.

---

Irrelevant. That's why they included it in the decision.

quote:

---

Second, the vast majority of Latino immigrant parents of "anchor babies" "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,

---

No the frick they don't. The vast majority of them have no support except what they get from the govt.
The Chinese go on vacation to come have their babies here. You think that's what the SCOTUS in 1898 wanted? You think that's what they framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind?

Don’t forget lawyers.

Lawyers tried to fix the citizenship issue of slavery without giving Indians citizenship. And in trying to halve the baby, another fricking lawyer comes along and makes Chinese people illegal. To right that wrong, another fricking lawyer makes birthright citizenship the interpretation of the 14th.

No lawyers and no problem.

quote:

---

The 14th Amendment does not confer automatic citizenship.

---

quote:

---

Our argument is straightforward. The text of the 14th Amendment contains two requirements for acquiring automatic citizenship by birth: one must be born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. The proper understanding of the Citizenship Clause therefore turns on what the drafters of the amendment, and those who ratified it, meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Was it merely a partial, temporary jurisdiction, such as applies to anyone (except for diplomats) who are subject to our laws while they are within our borders? Or does it instead apply only to those who are subject to a more complete jurisdiction, one which manifests itself as owing allegiance to the United States and not to any foreign power?

---

https://americanmind.org/salvo/birthright-citizenship-game-on/

How about this tyranny?

quote:

---

He was a shite eater too. His symptoms didn't start until he was 39. Polio is passed through the fecal-oral route. I don't mean to hypothesize, but he more than likely contracted it performing fellatio on the member of someone who had previously been exposed to polio during anal sex.

---

quote:

---

I responded to what you said about the constitution being in need of being modernized to conventional standards.

---

Actually, I didn’t.

I said it needed to be looked at in terms of factors that simply did not exist at the time.

The 2A placed zero restrictions on arms because the absolute most destructive weapon in existence was still something many people could make in a well-equipped blacksmith workshop. Nuclear weapons would not have even been something to get your head around, yet here we are with plenty of laws and restrictions about things like explosives and very few people even mutter a peep.

The Birthright Citizenship Con
from Tom Woods

“By. executive order, Donald Trump has declared that the Fourteenth Amendment is not to be interpreted as mandating birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants -- a position shared by Ron and Rand Paul, incidentally -- and of course the result has been the usual hysteria.

But there is a very strong case to be made that Trump has the better of the constitutional argument.

The Fourteenth Amendment begins, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The key phrase to consider there when considering who is a "natural-born citizen" is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The argument of Trump's legal supporters is that illegal immigrants are subject to a foreign sovereignty, are therefore not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thus the citizenship clause above does not apply.

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause, ignored by birthright citizenship advocates, has to have some meaning or it wouldn't have been included, and the number of children of foreign diplomats being vanishingly small, we can assume it extended beyond that extremely rare case (so rare as hardly to be worth mentioning).

What was meant by the clause was that you had to be subject to no other sovereign.

Senator Jacob Howard drafted the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is what he said it meant: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." (Emphasis added.)

Well, if we value honesty, that right there should settle it.

Congressman John Bingham, sometimes called the father of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, held that its meaning was that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." (Emphasis added.)

Beyond this evidence, two Ivy League professors, Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith, in Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity, published by Yale University Press, make a compelling case that the Fourteenth Amendment does not mandate birthright citizenship.

The two scholars begin a Summer 2018 article in National Affairs this way:

If an unauthorized alien gives birth to a child on American soil, is the child automatically a United States citizen? Americans have long assumed that the answer is yes — that the child is a birthright citizen regardless of the parent's legal status, and that such citizenship is required and guaranteed by the Constitution. But a closer examination of the matter suggests that this answer is actually incorrect, and that birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants here illegally is better understood as a matter for Congress and the American people to resolve.

What makes their conclusion especially interesting is that Schuck and Smith describe themselves as scholars who "strongly favor even more legal immigration than the U.S. now accepts, and a generous amnesty for those now here illegally."

So even though their conclusion runs counter to their personal political beliefs, and they are not Trump sympathizers in the least, they contend that the evidence is so strong against birthright citizenship that scholarly honesty compels them to say so: "The fact that many opponents of birthright citizenship for the children of unauthorized parents harbor anti-immigrant views does not mean that their bottom-line position is wrong."

They argue that because the Constitution does not mandate birthright citizenship, the matter may be regulated by congressional statute instead.

There was no "illegal immigration" problem at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted, so (even though we have the testimony of Jacob Howard, which would seem to settle the matter), Schuck and Smith suggest using the example of Native Americans to shed light on the issue.

The framers vested such discretion [regarding the citizenship question] in Congress with respect to Native Americans, whose presence in the country (which of course long predated that of the framers themselves) was manifestly accepted. This was recognized in the 14th Amendment's own text, a long line of treaties with the tribes, and legislation regulating their citizenship. We doubt the framers would have denied Congress that same policy choice with respect to a group whose very presence in the country — by definition — violates federal law. Basic constitutional protections for this group would certainly have been granted, as in Plyler. But automatic citizenship without public debate and congressional consent would probably not have been. [Emphasis added.]

This is one very good reason that history matters. Not so much because we can always draw neat little "lessons" from it, but because if we have a deep knowledge of history we will be better equipped to respond to shysters trying to pull one over on us.”

quote:

---

That's the plan. You need lower level courts to reject so it goes to the SC.

---

And they'll send ot to Congress who will have to have a two-thirds majority.

So it was all useless.