“SLIDE-Since it’s festival, I’ll chime in. I’m not really big on this issue, because I think it’s a gray area that needs to be clarified by a constitutional amendment. I don’t trust the Congress or the Courts to do this without some check on what they do—hence the need to counter balance with at least 2/3 of the states ratifying.”
I agree that the definition needs to be clarified, but not by amendment. If we have to define one “unclear” term in the constitution by amendment, then we would have to define them all, i.e., bear, infringed, speech, search, assembly, press, cruel and unusual, probable cause, etc. Big disagreements on all of these. Future generations would pass amendments to repeal our amendment and install the definition du jour.
Clarification is the province of an honorable Supreme Court that studies what these terms originally meant, and why and how they came to be used in the Constitution. Not something I’ll see in my lifetime, unfortunately, unless Trump is completely successful in replacing 3-4 justices with originalists.
While the founders were visionaries, they could not envision a time when Americans would be so lazy that they would let the beautiful republic they had been bequeathed dissolve beneath their lazy feet and fat asses; that they would allow their children to be separated from the history of how this country came to be and the gifts that liberty provides.
“The more pressing issue to me is anchor babies, and tourism babies—I don’t think they should be considered citizens, when their parents are not citizens and especially if the parents are here illegally. YMMV.”
My mileage doesn’t vary on this - at all. The history of and discussions on the 14th amendment, to me, were quite clear. It was NEVER intended that children born here to foreigners (legal or illegal) would be citizens of the US. You are spot-on in your thinking.
Already done.
That's why I'm sticking with CJ Morrison Waite and the definition contained in his unanimous SC opinion from 1875.
Very good points, and you are correct. However,The honorable Supreme Court is not likely to accept such a case, based on their track record. And frankly, some of their rulings on citizenship boggle the mind.
And there have been changes, such as women voting and Indians now being citizens of both the Indian Nation as well as USA etc.
Another question I have also, is the case where 2 citizen parents have a child born on USA soil. Take the baby to another country to live for 18 or 19 years. Then when he’s 35 he’d be eligible, but I think it’s important to be raised in America too, so I’m not certain I’d like that.
It gets back to what do the majority of the people want-a political issue I guess, which is why the Supremes deliberately stayed out of the question the last time.
So I favor the amendment not for the purpose of definition so much as developing a consensus of the people as to who should be considered eligible for president. But you’ve made good points, and for sure it’s within Supreme Court’s venue.