Posted on 10/31/2018 3:28:18 AM PDT by reaganaut1
It will end up at the Supreme Court. It should have been there in 1966, but has been used as a political football in every election since then. I think that the President is shrewd in this move, and no, I don’t think he was surprised. He was elected on the premise that he would stop anchor babies and is just trying to accomplish one more promise. To do it though, he has to work outside of the political box of Washington DC. No one else has had the guts to stick with it.
if the meaning was plain why did Congess feel it necessary to clarify it later for Indiginous people?
——the President is shrewd in this move-—
Yes. What’s more, he has not revealed what more is hidden in his sleeve.
Not shall be.
Reside is also present tense. It is silly to speak of a new born baby residing any place. E.g. my daughter was born in New York City but never resided there until she graduated from college.
ML/NJ
Thanks for that. I was nearly taken in by this article.
Therein lies the problem with bringing the issue forward at this time. Kavanaugh may have filled Kennedy's seat on the Supreme Court but Roberts has replaced Kennedy as the swing vote. You know how Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan will vote but don't assume Roberts would line up with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. It doesn't matter what the framers intent was, Roberts will find a way to keep the court from making a decision that changes things on the matter. His goal is to preserve the status quo even if the status quo means Obamacare as a tax or birthright citizenship since the 1960's. Conservatives are still 1 vote shy on the Supreme Court.
That might be a problem
However, I would argue that the calculations have been made and the time is now or never
My pleasure, Laz! :-)
If an immigrant” is here ILLEGALLY—as in intentionally being in noncompliance with the laws—or juris dicta—of our country, how can they—and thus their offspring—be considered as being under the JURISDICTION of our nation!
The consideration is that illegal is irrelevant if they vote Democrat
In America, there is no law beyond that determined by a leftist judge.
What’s happening is that to counter judges making law from the bench, the President is making law from the oval office
Since there is a requirement of 60 votes in the Senate, America essentilly has no congress capable of making law
Thank God for President Trump!
For the first time the absolute absurdity of previous Supreme Court decisions are open to discussion. Now we can bring the 14th amendment into the light of day for all to see and discuss.
Previous Supreme Court decisions allow a Chinese mother to visit New York, see the sights, take in a Broadway play, and deliver a baby. Monday morning the mother takes her Chinese baby with American citizenship home to China. This is an on-going business in China and perhaps in other countries.
Now, throw chain-migration into the mix and you can see the need of discussion, which we wouldn't have except for President Trump. Thank you President Trump.
The 14th does not grant citizenship to illegals.
Excellent explanation. Mind if I steal that?
Pimping for the Cheap Labor Express, nothing to see but lies and distortions, move along.
Sophistry from the WSJ. Jurisdiction is of course the key, but so is intent. What was the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment? Did they seriously want women walking across the border squatting and squirting out newly formed U.S. citizens? Under this theory an invading army could drag their pregnant women into the country with them and create armies of invading enemy/citizens as they march. World gone mad.
The 14th was probably the most contested amendment in history.
Why do you think Jacob Howard's quote on intent is the only one you read in these internet discussions, and why do we assume that his spin was the way the "phrase was interpreted at the time"?
What about all of the other Congressmen as well as all of the representatives in the states who argued for and against the amendment?
I don't pretend to have read the Congressional Record or the transcripts of all of the debates in the states, but I do know for sure that one Senator's ambiguous statement means very little in the context of a constitutional amendment.
No natural born American in the United States has a safe haven from United States jurisdiction, but a "birthright" baby does have the protection of its parents' embassy inside the United States.
Therefore, a birthright baby is not completely subjected to the jurisdiction of the United States if it is taken to the foreign embassy within the United States.
-PJ
Let’s assume the drafters of that amendment were not morons. They had a choice between:
1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,”
and
2. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
They chose and ratified the second version. The only logical interpretation is that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to have a restrictive meaning. President Trump is correct.
Editorial fail.
Rupert Murdoch ruined the Wall Street Journal.
As the author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Jacob M. Howard of Michigan said...
“...will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.