All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

Matthew · January 26

51 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

diplomats in America are considered to no be "subjection to the jursidiction". In addition, enemy combatants/invaders are considered to be "subjection to the jursidiction"

Were these hypothetical diplomats and combatants born in the US?

Matthew · January 26

42 minutes ago, Deluge said:

it's a twisted law

Thanks for admitting that you hate the US Constitution.

herbie · January 26

A Deluge of the Deluded

eyeball · January 26

1 hour ago, Fluffypants said:

First of all, not a law.

Correct, the 14th Amendment is a constitutional right. It's not subject to the law because the law is subject to it.

Deluge · January 26

29 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Thanks for admitting that you hate the US Constitution.

No, I love the US Constitution. But thank you for admitting that you TWIST the US Constitution.

Deluge · January 26

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Correct, the 14th Amendment is a constitutional right. It's not subject to the law because the law is subject to it.

Wrong. The 14th Amendment is not a free pass.

That section needs to be clarified.

Non-citizens do not beget citizens. CITIZENS beget citizens.

Deluge · January 26

18 minutes ago, herbie said:

A Deluge of the Deluded

robosmith · January 26

9 hours ago, ironstone said:

It means diplomatic personnel who are exempt from US jurisdiction do not get birthright citizenship.

Who else is exempt from US jurisdiction on US soil? Certainly NOT immigrants who walk across the border.

If they were exempt, they could not be evicted. Duh

robosmith · January 26

2 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

First of all, not a law. Second, have you ever heard of the Federalist papers?

The intent behind the amendment is just as important as the amendment itself. Judges uses the intent of said amendment to determine what it was supposed to be for. Activists judges look at an amendment and completely ignores what the intent of the amendment was.

You know the ole stand by of "yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't considered protected speech" is because the judges looked at it and said it was never the intent of the amendment to cover stuff like that even though the Constitution doesn't mention exceptions.

You don't even quote the Federalist Papers to make your case, LOSER.

CdnFox · January 26

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

What are arms? Can i own a nuke? Is bearing arms meant to be done in context of a "well regulated militia?" None of these are clear from the 2nd amendment.

You've just proven your own augment about 'plain english' is stupid.

Black Dog · January 26

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You've just proven your own augment about 'plain english' is stupid.

You've just proven you're too dumb to get the point. The 14th Amendment is unambiguous, unlike the 2nd.

Hodad · January 26

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

What are arms? Can i own a nuke? Is bearing arms meant to be done in context of a "well regulated militia?" None of these are clear from the 2nd amendment.

Indeed, the idea that the 2nd amendment was an individual right rather than addressing the formation of militia is a relatively new and radical interpretation. Not until an internal revolution in the NRA in the late 70s did that become a political issue, and they found the right judges to turn the historical precedent upside down.

For anyone curious about that history

Matthew · January 26

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You've just proven your own augment about 'plain english' is stupid.

Hardly. The 2nd amendment is unclear compared to the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. Otherwise I think we would have seen some clever legal rationale by now casting doubt about some part of this very simple sentence.

So far the right wing argument made in this thread is that the meaning of this portion of the 14th Amendment should just be deliberately altered via activist justices on the Court. Winning!

Edited January 26 by Matthew

CdnFox · January 26

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

Hardly.

entirely.

Quote

The 2nd amendment is unclear compared to the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

Otherwise I think we would have seen some clever legal rationale by now casting doubt about some part of this very simple sentence

They are identically open to interpretation. it has come up a couple of times but really nobody's been particularly interested in changing it before now and when they did it was mostly based on race issues (japanese in ww2 for example, they didn't want japs born in the US to be citizens etc)

.And there really only was one case about it that set any real precedent, the Kim case. And the argument there bsically boiled down to "well if they don't get citizenship that way, then how DO they get it ?" Meaning there's a lot of citizens who wouldn't be citizens if it wasn't interpreted that way.

But that and future cases mentioned an interesting component. Essentially they are people of that jurisdiction because there's no act or the like that removes it. And there's some interesting legal possibilities there which could be imposed with new law.

Further - In KIm's case (the original case) is parents weren't american but they had come to america legally. It's possible for an argument to be put forward that those who are not in the country lawfully cannot be said to be under their jurisdiction. That's never really been tested. That would open the door for trump to address at least some of what he intends.

So like just about anything in the constitution, it is NOT as clear as you claim. I't's just never been an issue so it's never really come up.

Quote

So far the right wing argument made in this thread is that the meaning of this portion of the 14th Amendment should just be deliberately altered via activist justices on the Court. Winning!

Ok.

So anyway, back to reality - a lot of people have argued that phrases like "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.' And it is. but because democrats et al are anrgy about it they constantly push for it to be 'reinterpreted' and to weaken it.

Republicans if they set this amendment in their sights can do the same thing, challenging previous rulings in a way that opens the door to weaken or change it. The 2nd amendment language is crystal clear, and challenged frequently. This is no different.

Hodad · January 26

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

Hardly. The 2nd amendment is unclear compared to the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. Otherwise I think we would have seen some clever legal rationale by now casting doubt about some part of this very simple sentence.

So far the right wing argument made in this thread is that the meaning of this portion of the 14th Amendment should just be deliberately altered via activist justices on the Court. Winning!

It would be some extreme activism indeed. Nobody anywhere actually believes the meaning is unclear--because it isn't. And the precedent at the SCOTUS level is also very clear.

This specious "legal theory" is as absurd as the coup memo. Even the people promoting it don't believe it. They just hope they have enough shameless ideologues in the right places to get away with it.

Once, I would have said that even this corrupt and compromised court couldn't go that far, but every time I think that, they stoop lower.

CdnFox · January 26

24 minutes ago, Hodad said:

It would be some extreme activism indeed. Nobody anywhere actually believes the meaning is unclear--because it isn't. And the precedent at the SCOTUS level is also very clear.

This specious "legal theory" is as absurd as the coup memo. Even the people promoting it don't believe it. They just hope they have enough shameless ideologues in the right places to get away with it.

Once, I would have said that even this corrupt and compromised court couldn't go that far, but every time I think that, they stoop lower.

Oh look who decided to show up and display his level of ignorance on the subject LOL

gatomontes99 · January 26

11 hours ago, Matthew said:

Were these hypothetical diplomats and combatants born in the US?

Diplomats have immunity and could have children here but they wouldn't be citizens because the parent wasn't subject to the jurisdiction. Combatants would, theoretically, be military invaders.

Nationalist · January 26

21 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

wherein "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" opens the way for interpretation

the SCOTUS could interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof "

to exclude children of undocumented immigrants or those temporarily in the U.S.,

as their parents may owe allegiance to another country.

and/or Congress could pass a law restricting birthright citizenship for those specific groups

but ultimately, the President could simply invoke Article II war powers ; declare a national emergency

by those means overriding both Congress & the Courts,

by declaring those groups to be "enemy aliens", see ; internment of the Japanese Americans

Separation of Powers FTW

Yup. This is true.

Dougie93 · January 26

Just now, Nationalist said:

Yup. This is true.

this is America

it's a revolutionary republic

anything is possible

up to and including by force of arms as necessary

it is amusing how the Liberals in Canada are so eager to go to war

against the Glorious Union

Eagle with thunderbolts in talons grasped

Nationalist · January 26

10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

this is America

it's a revolutionary republic

anything is possible

up to and including by force of arms as necessary

it is amusing how the Liberals in Canada are so eager to go to war

against the Glorious Union

Eagle with thunderbolts in talons grasped

Oh pay no never-mind to our Libbies. They're nothing but a bunch of butt-hurt sore loosers who are about as physically imposing as a chihuahua.

Matthew · January 26

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Diplomats have immunity and could have children here but they wouldn't be citizens because the parent wasn't subject to the jurisdiction. Combatants would, theoretically, be military invaders.

The roots of these two minor exceptions are ancient, apparently from English Common law. For example diplomats not wanting their diplomatic service to negatively impact their child via citizenship. No one on the Court is going to extrapolate from this a broader new meaning to the 14th Amendments citizenship clause.

Matthew · January 26

The Supreme Court has weighed in a several times on the meaning of the juristiction clause of the 14th Amendment. In Plyer v. Doe (1982) they went back to the 1890s:

"Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was

"impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'"

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Id. at 169 U. S. 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912)."

So if you think even a so-called conservative court is going to radically depart from such a long consistency of precedent, I think you'll be disappointed.

Nationalist · January 26

8 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The roots of these two minor exceptions are ancient, apparently from English Common law. For example diplomats not wanting their diplomatic service to negatively impact their child via citizenship. No one on the Court is going to extrapolate from this a broader new meaning to the 14th Amendments citizenship clause.

I wouldn't hold my breath there Tweenkie-Poo.

You freaks wonder why this is all happening and how it could happen. Yet you silly twits already know the answer.

Ya gits wut ya pays fer.

Ya Libbies...you've brought this on yourselves with all the lies and purely destructive ideologies you've choked down our throats for so many years. You've absolutely begged for the social pendulum to swing as far back to the right, as you pushed it left.

Do enjoy the next 4 years freaks. And always remember...

We warned y'all...

Matthew · January 26

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I wouldn't hold my breath there Tweenkie-Poo.

You freaks wonder why this is all happening and how it could happen. Yet you silly twits already know the answer.

Ya gits wut ya pays fer.

Ya Libbies...you've brought this on yourselves with all the lies and purely destructive ideologies you've choked down our throats for so many years. You've absolutely begged for the social pendulum to swing as far back to the right, as you pushed it left.

Do enjoy the next 4 years freaks. And always remember...

We warned y'all...

Yeah ok. 🙄 As always, thanks for participating.