Good thing we got Cuahuatemoc to weigh in!
Why? I did a search of the full 14th Amendment and found no such word exists.
they were stupid to introduce the ‘domiciled’ term.
Just should have said “Two illegal aliens cannot birth a citizen”
To decide that they can the Supreme Court must create a new or change to a constitution clause.
They were only asked if Trump can or can’t proceed.
They should determine he can, because ... two illegals cannot create a citizen.
The decision has to be based on legal or illegal and nothing else.
This case will decide whether the Republic can be reborn, or whether the nation’s cultural fabric will continue to wither and eventually die.
The Left couched their argument under the convoluted definition of terms that ‘jurisdiction’ effectively meant ‘location’ — and nothing more.
Example (I think this was Justice Jackson’s story to lead the ACLU witness down the garden path): you’re vacationing in Japan and steal somebody’s wallet. Because you are in Japan, you are subject to Japan’s laws and they can therefore arrest and prosecute you under their laws and legal authority.
My counter-argument: of course you have to obey Japanese laws while visiting... but at the same time, you are NOT ‘living’ in Japan (i.e., you are not *domiciled* there). You aren’t paying Japanese income taxes, your mail isn’t delivered there, and your allegiance is still given to your home country.
The Solicitor General came up with the ‘domicile’ argument to allow the court to (a) accept his view of the 14th amendment while (b) still remaining in harmony with their 1898 decision in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark... a Chinese person born in the US to _legal_ immigrant parents who HAD established their home in the US.
In other words, Wong was an ‘anchor baby’ with real ties to the US... neither a ‘birth tourist’ nor the child of an illegal alien. Therefore, this citizenship ruling was correct... and different from what Trump’s executive order refers to.
Well Wong Kim Ark certainly did.
That's what will happen.
Domicile is an ordinary word in the English language. Have the lawyers screwed it up too?
Good thing we got Cuahuatemoc to weigh in!
Here is my opinion on the issue.
the court is supposed to interpret the constitution as it is worded
/...”domiciled” is not a word in the germane constitutional clause
No “birthright citizenship” ...
The result would be quite clear if the court were to just look at the constitution and not side-track into sophistry over words that are not part of the constitution.
“To rule, you must first change the rules.” Orwell
Trump and his legal team can huff, and they can puff... But the Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court will never see the term ‘reside’ as meaning ‘domiciled’. When they proposed and ratified the 14th amendment in 1888 the word domicile was available... They didn’t use it. They used the word reside.
re·side
/rəˈzīd/
verb
have one’s permanent home in a particular place.
In terms of the 14th amendment and the constitution... The ‘particular’ place they are referring to is the United States of America.
I think it’s a good argument: the alternative is to accept that squatters are “domiciled” in the home they are illegally living in.
A blindingly idiotic argument on the Government’s part. “Domiciled” is not part of this. The 14th Amendment along with the very detailed intent of the men who wrote it is crystal clear. They explained quite well, the concept of “Subject to the Jurisdiction of”.
The government argument about domiciled, the ease of jet travel, etc was sophomoric. I almost wonder if they were trying to throw the case. The Justices were practically laughing at him...
If they want to keep it they will wrestle around with words until they can justify their decision and that will depend on whether they want the Republic to survive.
If they want to stop the invasion they will just read what it says and issue the ruling.
Of course the could just set aside the stay on Trump's EO and avoid all the hassle. </s>
Sounds like Trump got his lawyers from watching late night TV commercials. Unfortunately we are stuck with a very commie, progressive as they were called back then, 14th amendment that was questionably ratified antebellum. The purpose was to create a kingdom class of citizenship that never existed and thus give us civil rights — not the original God given ones. Once the courts, gov, or any one says they give out the rights it is all over. Civil rights do not coexist with God given ones.
“. . . State wherein they reside” does not mean the citizenship is based on where they reside (domiciled).
When the 14th Amendment was debated, states of the Confederacy were taking the position that, OK, you can makes Negro slaves American citizens, but we aren’t going to let them be considered citizens of our states - no voting rights, no benefits, etc.
That’s why that clause is there. It’s not a requirement, it’s a directive to southern states (run by democrats, who then initiated things like poll taxes and tests to keep negroes from voting.)
WE THE PEOPLE, needs to be the defining distinction.
