| ▲ | nonethewiser 2 days ago |
| >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] |
