| ▲ | blktiger 2 days ago |
| I should be unanimous, it's what the constitution says. If you don't like it you need to go through the amendment process. |
|
| ▲ | nonethewiser 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| >I should be unanimous, it's what the constitution says Thats a tautology. “What the constitution says” is the thing in question. |
| |
| ▲ | crote 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, but it leads to allowing for the possibility of interpreting "..the right to bear arms.." as "you are allowed to own the limbs of an Ursus arctos". There's plenty in the US constitution which is vaguely worded, but you have to twist its words an awful lot to deny birthright citizenship. | | |
| ▲ | sheept 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, and they can do that if they wanted to. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. | | |
| ▲ | crote 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If we live in a world where words have no meaning and the definition of the Constitution can be interpreted to be literally anything depending on today's mood of the Supreme Court, why even bother writing a Constitution at all? Why not get rid of the whole charade and just replace it with "whoever is appointed to the Supreme Court can make up any law as they feel like it"? It has the same meaning, but it's an awful lot clearer! In fact, I think there's a term for a ruler with complete power who's there for life, something like an "absolute monarchy"? | |
| ▲ | goatlover 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And if they do enough of that, the other two branches might eventually be motivated to take action to counter it, like packing the courts or impeachments. Or telling SCOTUS to enforce it, as one president did. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 5upplied_demand 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The language couldn't be any clearer. The fact that it was questioned by people with a stated motive doesn't prove otherwise. "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." | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | arpinum 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... It's the second part that is in dispute and is not clear from the constitution's text what exactly it means and who it excludes. And yes, it has always excluded some people born within the borders, it is not a meaningless statement. |
| |
| ▲ | Windchaser 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, no, but almost everyone inside US borders is subject to US laws. The exceptions are rare: people in foreign embassies (which is "foreign soil"), invading armies, and indigenous tribes on tribal land. | | |
| ▲ | sershe 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | So if you follow the logic of this administration (which I don't) you can construe the illegal immigrants as an invasion. You would assume that if there was an invading army that got dispersed and the stragglers were hiding out for years after the state surrendered, like some Japanese soldiers after WW2, as the law enforcement was trying to find and remove them, the jurisdiction would not apply to them. Then, there could be a wartime state sponsored guerilla force. Then, allegedly state affiliated guerilla force infiltrating without an official conflict, like Russians in Donetsk in 2015. You have to draw a line somewhere, and in theory it could be pretty far either way | |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Tadpole9181 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, please, this is just blatant sanewashing. Anyone who does not have an explicit exclusion is under the jurisdiction of US laws while on US soil. There's zero room for ambiguity unless you're coming in bad faith with politically motivated intent. Or are you seriously arguing there's an interpretation where illegal immigrants can commit any crime they want and can't be deported? | | |
| ▲ | arpinum 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "subject to jurisdiction" does not mean "has to follow US law", that is territorial jurisdiction. Subject to jurisdiction means political jurisdiction and allegiance. That is why children born to members of Native American tribes (no matter the location of birth) were considered not subject to jurisdiction because the parents held allegiance to their tribe. Read United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). I don't have an opinion on the legally correct answer, reading the full decision and dissents I'd give a slight edge to the majority. | |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Where does it say "jurisdiction" only refers to criminal law? Diplomats aren't excluded from being subject to civil laws for "commercial activities," and U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats in suits pertaining to such activities. | | |
| ▲ | Windchaser 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This then seems like an argument that the children of diplomats should be US citizens, not an argument against naturalized birth for immigrants. |
| |
| ▲ | solid_fuel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are correct, but you will never sway the account you are replying to. Check their comment history. They put a ton of effort into carrying water for conservative causes, even when there is no legal or logical backing for them. Just like the conservatives on the supreme court, they arrive at their desired results first and work backward to their justification. | | |
| ▲ | arpinum 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > You are correct, but you will never sway the account you are replying to. Check their comment history. Me above: > I don't have an opinion on the legally correct answer, reading the full decision and dissents I'd give a slight edge to the majority. I'm also British, so DGAF about outcomes. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > subject to the jurisdiction thereof > A well regulated Militia POV: you're about to hear the dumbest takes on the internet. /s Seriously though, were the founding fathers just master ragebaiters or what? More ink has been spilled over these two lines than any other in modern history. |
|
|
| ▲ | voakbasda 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the past decade, the Constitution hasn’t slowed down the courts from creatively interpreting its various clauses. Their decisions have effectively amended many of those fundamental (and arguably inalienable) rights. Repeatedly. |
|
| ▲ | wang_li 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This trivial reading of the constitution doesn't align with the reality. Two simple exceptions and a third not so simple are children of diplomats, children of invading armies, and native americans, who required an act of congress to give citizenship at birth. |
