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

quote:

---

They didn't amendment the 14th to include Indians as citizens. They just passed legislation called the Indians Citizenship Act an

---

Because Congress can expand citizenship. That's irrelevant to the Constitutional baseline (Which Congress cannot violate)

quote:

---

I believe in textualism, like Scalia and Thomas, so this is irrelevant to me

---

Then why continue to misrepresent their methodology? Scalia was an avowed originialist but you always leave that out... it's strange.

quote:

---

the decision is long and detailed and was a pretty solid majority.

Jurisdiction is a legal term that’s pretty well defined.

---

And it's effectively NEVER been revisited in almost 130 years.

quote:

---

How is that relevant?

---

Just saying long isn't effective, I agree

It's long due to being incredibly detailed in its textual and historical analysis.

quote:

---

Like I said above, the 180 on Scalia and promoting a Living Constitution may be the most shocking hypocritical movement I've seen on this board.

---

I donno man. The TikTok FlipFlop was pretty fun to watch.

quote:

---

Like I said above, the 180 on Scalia and promoting a Living Constitution may be the most shocking hypocritical movement I've seen on this board.

---

For the record you've made the following claims lately.

Interpreting the 14th to mean "not owing allegiance to any other nation" = immunity for illegals.

Immunity for diplomats is handed down from something other than an act of congress.

Scalia was opposed to weighing congressional intent into his opinions.

I'm not sure your legal analysis is worth much.

quote:

---

Interpreting the 14th to mean "not owing allegiance to any other nation" = immunity for illegals.

---

Based on our current law.

quote:

---

Immunity for diplomats is handed down from something other than an act of congress.

---

Immunity for diplomats existed before Congress existed.

It was a concept that did not require codification, which doesn't exclude later codification.

quote:

---

Scalia was opposed to weighing congressional intent into his opinions.

---

I've posted exact quotes from him (and Thomas) on this issue to prove this point.

quote:

---

I'm not sure your legal analysis is worth much.

---

I've backed up everything I've said

quote:

---

How is that relevant? Dred Scott was long as well, big fan of lengthy opinions?

---

it’s long, packed with supporting president voting english common law AND state laws/common law.

It’s a well thought out opinion.

and there are plenty of bad Scotus opinion where they ignore all the law and just decide what they want.

But this one isn’t one of them. they didn’t have some political agenda to make Chinese immigrants citizens.

It’s also supports a plain reading interpretation.

the idea that an immigrant isn’t subject to our jurisdiction ignores the fact that they are.

I’ve enjoyed how you explained “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” using the killer of Laken Riley and literal heads have exploded thinking you’re somehow siding with him

quote:

---

Immunity for diplomats existed before Congress existed.

It was a concept that did not require codification, which doesn't exclude later codification.

---

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

It didn't require codification? That's absurd. You have never and will never be able to explain that.

quote:

---

I've posted exact quotes from him (and Thomas) on this issue to prove this point.

---

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

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.

He rejected the idea of relying on the congressional record to find that intent. But wasn't opposed to determining intent, that wouldn't make sense. How else do you interpret a statute but by determining intent? Even using English common law is an attempt to understand the intent of the law.

This word means this, that word means that... is trying to understand the intention of the written law. The opposite is what he soundly rejected, ignoring what the words written mean and applying what they ought to mean.

Here he is explaining how important the Federalist Papers are in determining the intent of the framers.

quote:

---

I speak to law students from the best law schools -- people, presumably, especially interested in the law and I ask them, "How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?" And a lot of hands will go up. [And I say], "No, not just Number 48 and the big ones. How many of you have read the Federalist Papers cover to cover?" Never more than about 5%.

And that is very sad, especially if you're interested in the Constitution. Here's a document that says what the Framers of it thought they were doing.

---