Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't vote for Trump but I agree with his hardline stance on this. It's time that we stopped handing out citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
Unfortunately, his executive order will be DOA once it hits the courts.
Stick a fork in us...we're pretty much done as a country. It's over, and the inmates are running the asylum.
Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh
Textualist, that take into account the deliberation leading to the amendment at the times in history, that they were ratified.
Neil Gorsuch will surprise you on an issue like this but Kavaugh was bought and paid for.
Wrong, he can make an EO and force SCOTUS to interpret it.
I think that's the endgame...now that he has two of his own hand-picked justices on the Supreme Court, he may be trying to force a re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
I'd love to see anchor baby citizenship and birth tourism end. It's way past time.
Who is Howard and why wasnt that language put in the amendment, there are plenty that would disagree with his opinion. If this even gets to th SC it would be 9-0
This is exactly my point. The so-called “strict constitutionalists” really only want to apply strict constitutionalism when it comes to amendments they like, not to all. Regardless of what they might wish was written into the 14th Amendment, or even what Sen. Howard wishes was written into it, the language is straightforward - anyone born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction of its laws and Courts is a US citizen.
Applying the “plain language” test that was so popular with Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, not to mention the purported “originalists” on this thread, that is really where the legal inquiry ends. At best, one might argue that “jurisdiction” is not 100% clear (a premise with which I disagree), but even then, the drafters and delegates expressly discussed how it was to be defined - and they did so in terms of whether US civil and criminal laws applied to the infant and whether they could be haled into a US Court for the enforcement of those laws.
If the drafters intended to exclude foreigners from birthright citizenship, they did a poor job of drafting an Amendment that did so. If Congress wants to change the language to exclude foreigners, there is a means by which they can do so; a Constitutional Amendment.
Personally, I’m open to an amendment to exclude illegal aliens from the 14th Amendment. But the preservation of the Constitutional process is more important than any one political issue. Especially a minor one like this one.
Depends on the interpretation now doesn't it? Yeah it does. It will go to SCOTUS and finally be resolved. It wasn't meant to be used as a citizenship generator for foreigners and everyone knows it but they cheat the system with it.
The problem is since birthright citizenship is not legal under the Constitution as per the Fourteenth Amendment, it is not a Supreme Court overruling. Instead it is outright unconstitutional and instead we need two thirds of states or Congress passing a new constitutional amendment ending it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
The 14th Amendment:
"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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"All persons born" seems pretty straight-forward. I wonder how those that believe in the 'originalism' viewpoint of the Constitution would interpret this clause? What did they mean by 'All persons born'?
In short, President Trump cannot amend the meaning of the Constitution by executive order. I happen to agree that the Constitution should be amended so that 'anchor babies' (meaning, those whose parents are not US citizens) are not citizens simply due to the fact that they were born within our borders. If one parent is a citizen, fine. If both are not, then no citizenship for the child.
But such can only be by amending the Constitution.
Exactly, it is stupid and fruitless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
Yes. If it goes to the SCOTUS and they set limits on the 14th, that would change things. The EO, by itself, would start out an unConstitutional EO.
Which isn’t such a great idea.
Congress should be tackling this issue.
Perhaps, but the problem is this would go against the original construction which many of the conservative leaning judges use in their rulings. Look at the baker ruling, Justice Kennedy actually said to the baker, if this wasn't a suit about the anti-defamation commission, the would have lost. Not that Kennedy is pro gay rights or not, but constitutionally they have the same rights as anyone else. If it does, then the conservative justices are full of crap.
Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh
Textualist, that take into account the deliberation leading to the amendment at the times in history, that they were ratified.
TRUMP is da BOSS!
Getting **** done!
Making Obama look like a incompetent buffoon.
Taking into account the deliberations and legislative history leading to the Amendment is, quite literally, the opposite of what strict textualists do.
Maybe before woofing it up about how they got their team's guy on the Supreme Court, people ought to educate themselves on what their legal leanings actually mean. Using the example of the 14th Amendment, if literally every delegate expressed their understanding that the 14th was meant to exclude foreigners on American soil from birthright citizenship, a textualist would totally ignore their understandings in favor of the plain meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" - which is to say subject to the laws and legal system of the United States.
In any event, textualism is the total opposite of what you appear to think it is. Unbelievable.
When the 14th amendment was ratified, we did not have any of the social services we have today.
There was no way that congress could have predicted that it would one day be used to take money from the US tax payers to hand over to poor foreigners who merely have to give birth to children on our soil in order to get that money.
Nothing positive for US citizens comes from birthright citizenship. I would think that this would be an issue that united all US citizens. Either we have a country or we dont.
Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh Textualist, that take into account the deliberation leading to the amendment at the times in history, that they were ratified.
TRUMP is da BOSS!
Getting **** done!
Making Obama look like a incompetent buffoon.
You just changed the definition of a textualist, this would be called legislating from the bench or activism which it appears you now suddenly embrace. You need to make up your mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
