If only Democrats listened to people outside the MSNBC and Mother Jones bubble. Even liberals like Ezra Klein and Bari Weiss are considered too hot and Trump-aligned for the leaders of the party that's supposed to right the ship. The Biden years were the inevitable result of a lifelong political hack and compromiser who had no policy chops in any domain, serving as president while suffering declining mentation. Democrats and their entire institutional kingdom set themselves up. They (we) are paying for their shortsightedness. They won't listen to us.
I don't believe you are the final authority on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction of" or that anyone else is. I read a news feed yesterday in which Alan Dershowitz somewhat agreed with you even though he supports eliminating birthright citizenship. He further stated that "subject to the jurisdiction of" is undefined in the Constitution and if Congress could pass a law defining the term, there would be a good chance the law would pass muster with the Supremes. Such a law might allow a different interpretation of the 14th Amendment without amending the Constitution.
SCOTUS is the final authority, and they've already determined what it means because it was already litigated and is based in English common law like jus soli (right of the soil, more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli). There's a good summary of the legal history at https://www.jstor.org/stable/40176768.
It's plain text: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means subject to our legal system. The only people excluded - to my knowledge - are diplomats, because they have diplomatic immunity and are not subject to our legal system. That's why their children born in the US are not citizens of the US.
If you want to change it to solely a jus sanguinis (right of blood) system, then the constitution must be amended to state it plainly.
So, I've learned two things today. If I need a lawyer, I should contact you instead of Alan Dershowitz, and that the Supreme Court never overturns a precedent.
From your Wikipedia link:
The concept of birthright citizenship applying to the child born of a foreign national in the country without proper credentials has never been formally litigated, but the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) allowed the government to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children only in the cases of children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory, and, thus, this decision is most often interpreted as barring the government from denying citizenship to those born in the U.S. based on the alienage of their parents.[34][35] (See United States nationality law.)
As far as we know, illegals are hostile in that they are occupying U. S. territory in total defiance of federal law. Some are proven foreign enemy agents. No controls and no vetting can lead to the worst-case scenarios.
You should also read the actual debates surrounding the law to understand the intent as written and passed, 'cause they discussed a heckuva lot and ultimately did not set any exclusions other than being born or naturalized in the US and being subject to US jurisdiction.
Or is originalism only applicable when it favors your position?
There you go again(to quote Ronald Reagan). Calling Jan. 6th an insurrection. That is a lie, straight up. And the nerve of describing yourself as a constitutional conservative. That is so laughable. Nobody who admits voting for Joe Biden is a constitutional conservative, straight up. Try again, David.
"A woman who once called herself the 'MAGA Granny' has spent the past few years criticizing Donald Trump after she was sentenced to 60 days in prison for being part of the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021."
"Now Pamela Hemphill from Boise, Idaho, will decline the pardon that Trump offered her and other Jan. 6 convicts during the first hours of his second term, she told The Washington Post."
"'I don’t want to be a part of them trying to rewrite history. It was an insurrection that day,' Hemphill said Tuesday, the day after Trump issued the pardons."
"Hemphill, 71, is giving up the chance to clear her name, and she said she will remain on federal probation for nine more months. She pleaded guilty, according to court documents, to violent entry or disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. She said she served 60 days at a federal prison in California in 2022."
"It is exceedingly rare for someone to reject a pardon, said Erica Zunkel, director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School."
"'The reasons underlying what she did are truly of a different time and of a different political atmosphere, and really stands in stark contrast to how other people who got commutations and pardons for Jan. 6 stuff have very much leaned into ‘I did nothing wrong,’' Zunkel said."
"Hemphill said she knows what she did was wrong. The evidence backs her up."
David, I guess I am stuck in the middle with you once again :)
If only Democrats listened to people outside the MSNBC and Mother Jones bubble. Even liberals like Ezra Klein and Bari Weiss are considered too hot and Trump-aligned for the leaders of the party that's supposed to right the ship. The Biden years were the inevitable result of a lifelong political hack and compromiser who had no policy chops in any domain, serving as president while suffering declining mentation. Democrats and their entire institutional kingdom set themselves up. They (we) are paying for their shortsightedness. They won't listen to us.
I don't believe you are the final authority on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction of" or that anyone else is. I read a news feed yesterday in which Alan Dershowitz somewhat agreed with you even though he supports eliminating birthright citizenship. He further stated that "subject to the jurisdiction of" is undefined in the Constitution and if Congress could pass a law defining the term, there would be a good chance the law would pass muster with the Supremes. Such a law might allow a different interpretation of the 14th Amendment without amending the Constitution.
There is a case for eliminating birthright citizenship but there is no shortcut to amending the Constitution to do it. Or there shouldn’t be anyway.
Or at the least restricting who is eligible, e.g. legal residents that are not naturalized citizens.
SCOTUS is the final authority, and they've already determined what it means because it was already litigated and is based in English common law like jus soli (right of the soil, more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli). There's a good summary of the legal history at https://www.jstor.org/stable/40176768.
It's plain text: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means subject to our legal system. The only people excluded - to my knowledge - are diplomats, because they have diplomatic immunity and are not subject to our legal system. That's why their children born in the US are not citizens of the US.
If you want to change it to solely a jus sanguinis (right of blood) system, then the constitution must be amended to state it plainly.
So, I've learned two things today. If I need a lawyer, I should contact you instead of Alan Dershowitz, and that the Supreme Court never overturns a precedent.
From your Wikipedia link:
The concept of birthright citizenship applying to the child born of a foreign national in the country without proper credentials has never been formally litigated, but the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) allowed the government to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children only in the cases of children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory, and, thus, this decision is most often interpreted as barring the government from denying citizenship to those born in the U.S. based on the alienage of their parents.[34][35] (See United States nationality law.)
As far as we know, illegals are hostile in that they are occupying U. S. territory in total defiance of federal law. Some are proven foreign enemy agents. No controls and no vetting can lead to the worst-case scenarios.
Are illegal immigrants subject to our laws?
You should also read the actual debates surrounding the law to understand the intent as written and passed, 'cause they discussed a heckuva lot and ultimately did not set any exclusions other than being born or naturalized in the US and being subject to US jurisdiction.
Or is originalism only applicable when it favors your position?
There you go again(to quote Ronald Reagan). Calling Jan. 6th an insurrection. That is a lie, straight up. And the nerve of describing yourself as a constitutional conservative. That is so laughable. Nobody who admits voting for Joe Biden is a constitutional conservative, straight up. Try again, David.
The MAGA Granny disagrees:
"A woman who once called herself the 'MAGA Granny' has spent the past few years criticizing Donald Trump after she was sentenced to 60 days in prison for being part of the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021."
"Now Pamela Hemphill from Boise, Idaho, will decline the pardon that Trump offered her and other Jan. 6 convicts during the first hours of his second term, she told The Washington Post."
"'I don’t want to be a part of them trying to rewrite history. It was an insurrection that day,' Hemphill said Tuesday, the day after Trump issued the pardons."
"Hemphill, 71, is giving up the chance to clear her name, and she said she will remain on federal probation for nine more months. She pleaded guilty, according to court documents, to violent entry or disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. She said she served 60 days at a federal prison in California in 2022."
"It is exceedingly rare for someone to reject a pardon, said Erica Zunkel, director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School."
"'The reasons underlying what she did are truly of a different time and of a different political atmosphere, and really stands in stark contrast to how other people who got commutations and pardons for Jan. 6 stuff have very much leaned into ‘I did nothing wrong,’' Zunkel said."
"Hemphill said she knows what she did was wrong. The evidence backs her up."
https://wapo.st/3EguEBT
That's an interesting and compelling story. I had not heard.
Keep deluding yourself Cam.