re: Trump has officially petitioned the SCOTUS to allow him to END birthright citizenship

quote:

---

No, it would make it less so

---

Ignoring the actual words of the Constitution to combat societal problems that couldn't have been foreseen as the writing of the applicable portion is living document nonsense.

You can't effectively reverse WKA without engaging in such silliness.

Again, that exact same analysis can invalidate the 2A in modern practice because at the time of writing, they couldn't' have envisioned anything other than muskets.

quote:

---

textualism is asinine.

---

If you're not relying on the text, what are you relying on, exactly?

Feelings?

quote:

---

why didn't they write the text to specifically reflect this?

---

Because they didn't think we would be stupid enough to destroy ourselves.

quote:

---

you're not relying on the text, what are you relying on, exactly? Feelings?

---

Originalism, otherwise the meaning of the text changes as language and society changes and makes it a "living document" which is how we get all these made up "rights"

quote:

---

Who is suggesting this. You're doing it again.

You're creating an aperture and trying to require everyone to discuss this within it.

---

Not at all

Wong Kim Ark was an analysis of the words

You reject that method and those words to interject something else in, to replace the actual text

quote:

---

Not at all

---

100%

quote:

---

Wong Kim Ark was an analysis of the words

---

Textualism is asinine.

quote:

---

You reject that method and those words to interject something else in, to replace the actual text

---

0%

quote:

---

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

---

quote:

---

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:
"The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

16 Wall. 83 U. S. 73. This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.

---

quote:

---

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 28 U. S. 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

---

quote:

---

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

---

etc etc etc

WKA goes into excruciating detail as to what the words/concepts mean over hundreds of years of usage in case law and general usage.

quote:

---

What do the founders have to do with anything in this discussion?

---

You usually stress me out. But you are correct. They didn’t and would never have written that crazy arse ambiguous passed in a rush feel good amendment. If they had drafted it - it would have been clear and simply restrained and defined the power of the government, as opposed to trying to be the constitution and legislation in one.

That said, I think the 14th amendment was only intended to grant citizenship to living freed slaves. To hold otherwise would undermine the provisions related to why ambassadors have babies and they don’t become US citizens.

Therefore, we otherwise disagree bc for some weird reason you think that someone who comes here and gives birth makes the baby a citizen for some nonsensical reason based on dicta in a SCOTUS opinion a hundred years ago.

Sorry. You can’t interpret something in a way that leads to absurd results.

quote:

---

Originalism is a form of textualism

---

I disagree, and I've never heard that description because textualism is asinine.