re: Revisiting Birthright Citizenship Oral Arguments - Jus Soli - Exceptions

quote:

---

but I also don't think they could imagine that it would become basically impossible to amend the Constitution.

---

Part of me is incredibly glad that it is difficult to amend the constitution all you have to do is look at Florida or 60% of the voters can change and it has about 10,000 amendments some of which are absurd

quote:

---

You can cite Wong Kim Ark all you want. This Supreme court has rewritten long held precedent before

---

The government specifically told the court last week they were NOT arguing to overturn WKA.

quote:

---

So if I understand the leftists correctly, my ancestors stole the land centuries ago, but the anchor baby dropped here ten minutes ago is entitled to it?

---

Bingo

Also, you're going to pay someone something because someone may have done something 2 to 300 years ago to someone unrelated to these inbreds that had nothing to do with anyone alive today.

Spotted that right away did you? That’s because you’re so good at it.

quote:

---

WKA seems like a train wreck.

---

It is.

As posted in another thread:
Ark was judicial activism.

quote:

---

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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.”

---

Intent was CLEARLY declared. The Fuller SCOTUS ignored it.

Perhaps Ark could have been found more narrowly, but the Fuller Court was simply awful.

Plessy v Ferguson is oft cited as the second to worst decision in SCOTUS history behind Dred Scott. (I'd argue TX v PA was with Plessy/Roe a close 3rd/4th.) Regardless, Plessy, Ark, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, Lochner v. New York, Berea College v. KY were a collection of especially bad rulings by Fuller's court.

quote:

---

---

Bizarre.

The effect of Ark and it's subsequent interpretations, is to cede control of US elections to a foreign country. That is a breach of every premise in the US Constitution. The Fuller SCOTUS was simply too incompetent to anticipate that outcome. What is your excuse?

quote:

---

Intent was CLEARLY declared

---

You posted one person

Hundreds were involved.

quote:

---

The Fuller SCOTUS ignored it.

---

Because they relied on textualism

You can definitely respond to this. The bigger issue isn’t just how Wang defines the exceptions; it’s who gets to change the rule at all. Birthright citizenship has been settled through the 14th Amendment and long-standing precedent, so altering it should take an act of Congress (or an amendment), not a unilateral shift. Otherwise, you risk a yo-yo effect where one president restricts it and the next expands it again, and the Court generally wants to avoid that kind of instability around something as fundamental as citizenship.

On her argument, saying there’s a “universal rule” with a “closed set of exceptions” isn’t unusual in law. But the weak spot is how fixed those exceptions really are. Once everything hinges on being “subject to the jurisdiction,” you’re in a gray area that can be interpreted different ways. That’s exactly the concern. If the boundaries can shift depending on interpretation, it reinforces why changes should go through Congress to keep the rule consistent and predictable.

quote:

---

there is no difference between an Indian born off the reservation, therefore under US jurisdiction, and an illegal alien from a foreign country born in the US "under US jurisdiction."

---

Except the idiosyncratic status of Indians + a lot of racism at the time.

And WKA just accepted the ruling in EvW and included it. EvW only had applicability over Indians and has no bearing on WKA's ruling.

quote:

---

Yet by your interpretation of Ark, in those identical circumstances, one is a US citizen and one is not.

---

Different case. Different populations. Different impact.

quote:

---

So, in order to logically use legislative intent, we have to find all of these intents and then do a straw poll or something

---

or conversely, those "hundreds" took the author of the clause at his word, and passed the amendment based on that understanding. To relegate the author's stated intent to nothing more than one opinion of hundreds is ridiculous.