Replies

The very case you cite, undercuts your argument. In reaching its interpretation about children born in the US, the Court noted that Congress had not acted on this matter, as yet. Couple that with the fact that Congress has, by law, defined US land as being “outside” the US (the Inland Ports) and children of foreign diplomats as not “born in the US,” it’s pretty clear that Congress CAN solve this problem by legislation.

John / Billybob

The very case you cite, undercuts your argument. In reaching its interpretation about children born in the US, the Court noted that Congress had not acted on this matter, as yet.

And, as yet, it still hasn't. A hundred-year-old precedent is more difficult to overturn than a new one.

Couple that with the fact that Congress has, by law, defined US land as being “outside” the US (the Inland Ports) and children of foreign diplomats as not “born in the US,”

I'm not familiar with the inland ports case. Please enlighten. In the case of foreign diplomats, they are immune by treaty and are in not in nearly any sense "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Plus, if they're born on embassy grounds, they're not born in the US. Embassies and consulates, in legal terms, are the sovereign territory of the countries that maintain them, not the countries in which they reside.

It's a valid observation, but it's not on point.

it’s pretty clear that Congress CAN solve this problem by legislation.

I disagree that it's "pretty clear." There is a decent case for it, but no firm precedent. Few precedents are struck down after standing a hundred years with little challenge and no effort to amend the constitution to strike them down.