Double Crossing at the Rio Grande II

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 21 April 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Carry_Okie]

I stand by my assertion. A judge's interpretation of the act created the anchor baby ruling, and it's still not found in the text of the amendment.

There are two sources, ONE OF THEM IS BY THE AUTHOR OF THE CLAUSE, FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, AND DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THE CLAUSE PRIOR TO ADOPTION. There is nothing more authoritaive. You are merely being obstinate, insisting upon a subjective reading being equivalent to law.

[enigma825]

Not subjective, literal.

[Carry_Okie]

Not subjective, literal.

Bull. The author of the clause and those who approved it for ratification upon his explanation are the authority on what it means. You clearly believe that the Constitution means whatever you think it does when you read into it what you want to be there. In that respect, you are just like the Democrats.

The law means what it did was when it was passed, or it means nothing. Best you listen to Scalia a little more closely.