We've argued about this before - you claim the act applies to those born in the US, which of course it doesn't. It applies to aliens seeking to become naturalized, and those born overseas of American parents. Nowhere does it say it applies to those born on American soil.
The problem is not of laws, but how they are wrongly interpreted.
That well may be, but you won't change it unless you clarify the law. It may be your opinion, my opinion that cases are wrongly decided, but that won't change the existing decision. It took the first civil rights act and the 14th amendment to change the Dred Scott decision.
You have just NOW told me that you disagreed with Kelo.
I thought you were better at connecting the dots than that. I mentioned bringing up Kelo the way you keep bringing up abortion. Did you not take from that how much I disagree with the Kelo decision?
As for the solution to the problem, the first thing necessary is to DENOUNCE flawed and fraudulent decisions, not defend them as legitimate.
And this is where we disagree. The decision was made, therefore in the eyes of the law it's "legitimate." You can't pretend the decision wasn't made, or that it says something other than what it says. Instead, you need change the laws or part of the Constitution that allowed the erroneous ruling. Or work to get better judges on the bench. One more Conservative justice would have done it.
You harp on that trivial point when the larger point is that Congress granted "natural born citizen" status to the Children of American's born abroad, while refusing even basic citizenship to the children of non-resident foreign fathers.
Lest you have difficulty with the simplified logic of this act by congress.
2 citizen parents = Natural born citizen, soil unimportant. Ergo, Natural born citizen status not tied to soil.
Non-Resident father, no citizenship at all!
The corollary is that if the soil is not required for attaining natural born status, it makes no sense for it to be regarded as granting it in other cases.
That well may be, but you won't change it unless you clarify the law. It may be your opinion, my opinion that cases are wrongly decided, but that won't change the existing decision. It took the first civil rights act and the 14th amendment to change the Dred Scott decision.
That and a civil war. As repugnant as the Dred Scott decision was to modern sensibilities, from what i've read it appears to be technically correct within the applicable laws of that time. Lincoln cited Andrew Jackson in his refusal to accept the Supreme court's decision. (Jackson refused to accept the Supreme court's decision regarding the Cherokee Indians.)
I thought you were better at connecting the dots than that. I mentioned bringing up Kelo the way you keep bringing up abortion. Did you not take from that how much I disagree with the Kelo decision?
Apparently I am not always as astute as I would prefer. No, I missed that completely. Kelo was indeed a HORRIBLE decision, and would not have happened if not for the occurrence of completely unqualified Democrat appointees, and squish Republican appointees. This is why I castigate people who think there is some higher truth to be learned from the decisions of the supreme court. They are just another political body that falsely pretends to be above politics.
And this is where we disagree. The decision was made, therefore in the eyes of the law it's "legitimate." You can't pretend the decision wasn't made, or that it says something other than what it says. Instead, you need change the laws or part of the Constitution that allowed the erroneous ruling. Or work to get better judges on the bench. One more Conservative justice would have done it.
And with that last sentence you make my point for me! It isn't TRUTH or LAW being decided, it's POLITICS disguised as LAW! Why you think we should accept and respect this bastardized process I cannot fathom.