Reply With Quote
No, it's quite clear. Right in the text.
You should try reading it.
To what?
What is your conspiracy theory here?
No, it's quite clear. Right in the text.
You should try reading it.
the originalism is clear. the US Congress knew what it was doing.
I did read it. It doesn't explicitly say what I wrote. It's a judgement call.
It sure does.
Post it then. I know why you've avoided it so far.
lol 14th Amendment truthers
it wasn't meant to be color blind
I was just about to challenge you to do it. I know why you've avoided it so far.
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.
It's not my fault if you don't know what the words mean.
they said what they meant, they meant what they said
Trumplandia is twisting itself in pretzel shapes to say the opposite
p. 3215, 3rd column
congress-39-session-1-part-4.pdf
https://reason.com/2025/05/20/trump-...ays-otherwise/On May 30, 1866, the U.S. Senate kicked off its debate on the Citizenship Clause of the proposed 14th Amendment, which says, "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."
The first opponent to speak was Sen. Edgar Cowan (R–Penn.), who objected to the 14th Amendment on the grounds that it would bestow U.S. citizenship on the children of unpopular immigrants. "Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?" Cowan demanded. "Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese?"
Cowan also worried about the presence of "Gypsies" in Pennsylvania. "They wander in gangs in my State," he declared. "These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society." Are their children also to be granted birthright citizenship by the language of the amendment? "If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right," Cowan complained, "then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous."
Sen. John Conness (R–Calif.) then rose to speak in response to Cowan. "I beg my honorable friend from Pennsylvania to give himself no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California or on the Pacific coast," he said. "We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this cons utional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Cons ution of the United States to be en led to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."
Note that Cowan and Conness both agreed on the meaning of birthright citizenship. They only disagreed about whether or not that meaning would produce a welcome result. And note also that their shared original understanding runs counter to the position now advanced by the Trump administration.
The proposition before us," he said, "relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation."
Conness was referring here to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which Congress had passed in April over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. Why did Johnson veto it? Among "the provisions I cannot approve," Johnson wrote, was the first section of the law, in which "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."
It was bad enough, according to Johnson, that this statutory guarantee of birthright citizenship would make citizens "out of the entire race designated as blacks." In his view, "four million of them have just emerged from slavery to freedom. Can it be reasonably supposed that they possess the requisite qualifications to en le them to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?" But Johnson also objected to the fact that the Civil Rights Act would make citizens out of the children of "the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, [and] the people called Gipsies." Just like Cowan and Conness, Johnson also understood that birthright citizenship would apply to the U.S.-born children of unpopular immigrants.
H/T, Bill Kristol
ten years ago, I was not on this guy's side
I think he moved closer to me than the reverse
Darrin talks out of his ass for a reason.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1938631996999106887
Birthright citizenship is so obviously ingrained in the 14th Amendment and subsequent court challenges that even Samuel Alito will struggle to cobble together a dissent that isn’t merely partisan hackery. Trump’s argument will lose at least 7-2.
The entire lines of argument raised by the nativists were brought up back in the 1800’s and rejected.
Birthright citizenship will only end under a right-wing dictatorship where the Court is merely a rubber stamp.
I think the court entered a post-cons utional headspace after 2021, they shielded Trump from prosecution and gratuitously awarded him new legal immunity as president. It doesn't seem to me they have any trouble backfilling the cons ution with bespoke content in order to help Republicans...
In effect, the Supreme Court ruled that only it could decide issues on a national level. And then, with thousands and thousands of people waiting in limbo for resolution of many legally disputed Trump orders, the justices went on summer vacation, not to return until October.
"no law, just vibes"
this is a pretty good rundown of this session
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/163-a...cial-supremacy
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-03-2025 at 04:28 PM.
the Roberts court has covered itself with disgrace
this decision is particularly evil and noxious
process free removal to South Sudan as a third country for 8 people
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-03-2025 at 04:33 PM. Reason: sorry, South Sudan
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
