Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mojave

Glad to keep you laughing - I already admitted the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the alleged ambiguities claimed by Deal and others who want to limit the 14th Amendment's scope:

"That creates an opening for Congress to restrict birthright citizenship -- and then let the courts decide whether that limit is constitutional. In Deal's view, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is ambiguous enough that it might exclude children of parents who are foreign nationals. Automatic citizenship is now granted to anyone born in the United States, even the children of tourists.

Opponents say Deal and his supporters -- his legislation had 83 cosponsors as of last week -- are overreaching. All immigrants, legal or not, are subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. laws, says California's Howard L. Berman, the No. 2 Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Furthermore, Berman says he is baffled at conservative Republicans, who normally insist on a textual reading of the Constitution, building a case that the court must "interpret" the 14th Amendment. "The fact that the court has not had reason to explore this is because Congress has not had the inclination to adopt something that is so contrary to the plain meaning of those words," he said."

Bye-bye.


1,521 posted on 04/01/2006 8:25:11 AM PST by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1519 | View Replies ]


To: clawrence3
I already admitted the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the alleged ambiguities

If that evasive admission that your claim was false is the best you can do, it'll have to do.

1,529 posted on 04/01/2006 1:18:47 PM PST by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1521 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson