Posted on 08/23/2019 6:49:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was what we call an “originalist” when it came to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. He believed the only way to read the Constitution was in the context of the times when its provisions were written which formed the intent of those who wrote and later amended it. We could only interpret what they meant by reading what they wrote through the filter of the events of their day, not our day.
The issue of the 14th Amendment and whether it conveys birthright citizenship just from being born on American soil has resurfaced in the context of the current debate on immigration and border security. The answer can be found in looking at the times in which it was written and examining the actual words and thoughts of those who wrote it.
The 14h Amendment was written in 1868 after a bitter Civil War ended slavery. It was written to ensure the civil rights of freed slaves and to correct the injustices spawned by the 1857 Dred Scott decision which denied that blacks were entitled to citizenship under the Constitution. Surely it cannot be seriously argued that the authors of the 14th Amendment had in mind babies born to residents of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador who managed to sneak their pregnant bodies past a U.S. Border Patrol that didn’t exist yet in violation of immigration laws that hadn’t been written yet?
Like abortion rights, which were divined from the “penumbras” and “emanations” said to be lurking somewhere in that document, supporters of birthright citizenship say, well, the language is imprecise and the authors didn’t really mean to exclude the offspring of Guatemalans born in states which didn’t exist in 1868. This is a clear violation of the Scalia originalist doctrine.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You forgot:
8) End all welfare payments, food stamps, free medical, section eight vouchers, free schooling, etc., for illegal aliens.
They don’t just come here to work. The biggest draw (in my view) is the generous welfare bennies we provide them.
Agree.
I recognize white supremacy and bigotry when I see it. You're a racist, Norman.
You’re a racist nutcase who needs to be shown the door.
Go on. Deny the charge. Explain to everyone how you’re not guilty.
>
I believe SCOTUS will favor eliminating the anchor babies - the intent, or purpose, of the original law will push it through.
>
R-I-G-H-T. ‘Cuz their track-record re: plain English, let alone ‘intent’, has been *spectacular*
“..shall NOT be infringed.” - the (R)N(C) ‘golden-child’ thus proclaims ‘Rights are not absolute.’
O’Care - re-written from the bench.
CONSTANTLY needing *only* one more ‘flip’ from their Oaths (& basic English reading\comprehension) & more Rights\Freedom+ get trampled.
1. Trump says something.
2. Liberal heads explode. Righteous indignation. Angry denunciation. Angry chimp noises everywhere.
3. Turns out Trump was mostly right.
4. Silence.
I have some quotes on my computer about this, from the guys that wrote the amendment / the debates thereof. If I remember I’ll find em and post em later.
This needs to be done.
The public, including many elected Republicans, needs to be educated on what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means.
DAMN RIGHT!!!
I unfortunately cannot agree with you, because John Roberts is so unpredictable at times. We need to replace Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg first before we have an airtight majority.
100% with DJT and Scalia’s type of interpretation. I have never agreed that babies born to illegal aliens should automatically be citizen’s of the USA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.