- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The 14th Amendment needs to be read by courts in context (re: birthright citizenship)
Posted on 8/29/19 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 8/29/19 at 3:47 pm
The drafters of the 14th Amendment in no way intended for it to mean for anchor babies and citizenship because you happen to be born on US soil, despite the fact the child and the parents have no ties to the US.
This amendment was passed solely for the reason of ensuring that African Americans, now emancipated from Democrat slave holders, will now have citizenship as Americans since they were no longer property.
That's it. Any other interpretation is mumbo jumbo. It's one of the three amendments passed during Reconstruction to address issues of the Civil War.
This amendment was passed solely for the reason of ensuring that African Americans, now emancipated from Democrat slave holders, will now have citizenship as Americans since they were no longer property.
That's it. Any other interpretation is mumbo jumbo. It's one of the three amendments passed during Reconstruction to address issues of the Civil War.
4
Posted on 8/29/19 at 3:52 pm to Parmen
quote:This does not matter.
The drafters of the 14th Amendment in no way intended
quote:And sometimes, the law.
Any other interpretation is mumbo jumbo.
This post was edited on 8/29/19 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 8/29/19 at 3:57 pm to xiv
Melt. Constitution is dead, not a living document.
Posted on 8/29/19 at 3:57 pm to xiv
quote:
This does not matter.
Intent definitely matters. Just ask James Comey and Hillary Clinton.
Posted on 8/29/19 at 4:02 pm to Parmen
If I were an Originalist, I would probably have to agree that it is more likely than not that you are correct. But as a Textualist, I cannot do so. Originalism is just too subjective to use as one’s primary approach to Constitutional or statutory interpretation.
Words mean what they mean, unless they are ambiguous. There is not ambiguity in the words of the 14A vis-a-vis birthright citizenship.
Words mean what they mean, unless they are ambiguous. There is not ambiguity in the words of the 14A vis-a-vis birthright citizenship.
This post was edited on 8/29/19 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 8/29/19 at 4:12 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Words mean what they mean, unless they are ambiguous. There is not ambiguity in the 14A vis-a-vis birthright citizenship.
We agree!
What do these words...written by the man who wrote the 14th...mean? How do you interpret them??
“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",
Posted on 8/29/19 at 4:12 pm to Parmen
And then the 2nd, within the context of muskets...
Posted on 8/29/19 at 4:14 pm to TheHumanTornado
quote:
And then the 2nd, within the context of muskets...
Can you point out where muskets are mentioned?
Posted on 8/29/19 at 4:25 pm to Dale51
quote:Did I mumble?
What do these words...written by the man who wrote the 14th...mean? How do you interpret them??
“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",
You are making an Originalist argument. I have written here DOZENS of times that I think birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is VERY bad policy. As a Textualist, I CANNOT allow my personal policy views to influence my Constitutional interpretation. Therein lies the path to judicial activism.
The words in the document mean what they say.
If you are a Textualist, you simply MUST accept that sometimes your policy preferences will be at odds with the clear language of the Constitution. If you have any intellectual honesty at all, you do not respond by stomping your feet and denying reality. You respond by supporting Constitutional change.
This post was edited on 8/29/19 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 8/29/19 at 4:49 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You respond by supporting Constitutional change.
You're just making that up.
You seem to believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and hiding behind made up concepts to rationalize it.
Posted on 8/29/19 at 4:54 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
If you are a Textualist, you simply MUST accept that sometimes your policy preferences will be at odds with the clear language of the Constitution. If you have any intellectual honesty at all, you do not respond by stomping your feet and denying reality. You respond by supporting Constitutional change.
Honestly I agree. It's completely retarded and it's unlikely that anybody at the time even realized what they were including. That's one of the hazards of government decision-making. You often can't think of all of the ramifications
The last there is a fairly simple cure. Kick the parents out.
We really don't need to do anything with the Constitution because the solution is that simple
Posted on 8/29/19 at 5:22 pm to Parmen
quote:
The 14th Amendment needs to be read by courts in context (re: birthright citizenship)
quote:
The drafters of the 14th Amendment in no way intended for it to mean for anchor babies and citizenship because you happen to be born on US soil, despite the fact the child and the parents have no ties to the US.
The courts have never had the chance to make this interpretation. This interpretation began in earnest through the executive branch. IIRC it was the Nixon State Department that started birth right citizenship and has continued through subsequent administrations. Before that it was a non-issue.
The interpenetration can be changed by any president.
Then it can be properly challenged if someone feels harmed.
ETA: SCOTUS did hear a case where the parents were LEGAL immigrants. Offspring of ILLEGAL immigrants has never been heard.
This post was edited on 8/29/19 at 5:25 pm
Posted on 8/29/19 at 5:27 pm to Parmen
quote:Then what’s an
Constitution is dead, not a living document.
quote:?
Amendment
Melt.
Posted on 8/29/19 at 5:39 pm to Dale51
quote:So, you are saying BOTH (1) that Textualism sees the Constitution as a “living document” AND (2) that Textualism is a “made up concept.” Justice Scalia would find your view ... disconcerting.
You seem to believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and hiding behind made up concepts to rationalize it.
It is not often that one sees that much stupidity in a single sentence.
This post was edited on 8/29/19 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 8/29/19 at 6:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
So, you are saying BOTH (1) that Textualism sees the Constitution as a “living document” AND (2) that Textualism is a “made up concept.”
No...you're saying that.
Objective and observable reality doesn't care about intellectualized concepts.
Justice Scalia would find your view ... disconcerting.
So what? Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
quote:
It is not often that one sees that much stupidity in a single sentence.
Bless your heart.
* regardless of your distraction to strict legalese...what is your personal view on unfettered invasions of criminal aliens being given citizenship? Does it seem like a sustainable practice for any sovereign country to allow?*
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News