Supreme Court Oral Arguments in the Birthright Citizenship Case

[Care4all]

What is more important that what it WILL be , is what it SHOULD be.

Of course, what it will be!

And I think it will be 7 to 2, in the constitution's favor, and Trump loses!

 

[JohnDB]

Of course, what it will be!

And I think it will be 7 to 2, in the constitution's favor, and Trump loses!

Ummmm
So reading a definition that is opposite of what it plainly says is preferred?

Then the Constitution has zero meaning...

It is subject to feelings at the moment. Same thing goes for contracts, mortgages, bank accounts, and whatever.

Not exactly a comfortable idea for anyone.

 

[Care4all]

During the 1866 debates, the framers engaged in heavy discussions over who was covered by the new amendment.

The Citizenship Clause Debate​

Senator Jacob Howard added the Citizenship Clause on the Senate floor. He stated that the phrase "all persons born or naturalized" was simply declaring existing law: that every person born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction was automatically a citizen.


Opponents questioned whether this would grant citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants and Gypsies. Howard and his allies, like Senator John Conness, confirmed that it did. They clarified that the only people excluded by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were children of foreign diplomats or native tribes serving their own independent governments.

The Due Process and Equal Protection Debate​

Representative John Bingham intentionally used the broader word "person" rather than "citizen" in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. He argued that the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property belonged to every human being within the country's borders, regardless of their citizenship status.

The 14th Amendment does not codify English principles of subjectship: A brief reply to the Amar brothers

Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar have responded to my recent post arguing that the 14th Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to the children of temporary visitors to the United […]

www.scotusblog.com

Senator Jacob Howard​

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."

Howard used this quote to explain that the new Citizenship Clause was simply recognizing existing common law.

Representative John Bingham​

"The Congress is thereby vested with the power to hold them to answer... if they conspire together to enact laws refusing equal protection to life, liberty, or property."

Bingham stated this to show that the amendment's main goal was to force states to protect the fundamental rights of all human beings within their borders.

Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment

Source: Senator Jacob Howard, Speech introducing the 14th Amendment, May 23, 1866, Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 2764–2766, https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=072/llcg072.db&recNum=845. … The section of the amendment they have submitted […]

teachingamericanhistory.org

Constitution 101 Resources - 12.5 Primary Source: John Bingham, One Country, One Constitution, One People (1866) | Constitution Center

Constitution 101 resource for 12.5 Primary Source: John Bingham, One Country, One Constitution, One People (1866)

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Rawley]

Bottom line, he was a US Citizen because he was born here

Yup. That's your argument - ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is meaningless. Superfulous. All you have to be is born here.

 

[protectionist]

Of course, what it will be!

And I think it will be 7 to 2, in the constitution's favor, and Trump loses!

You hope.

 

[protectionist]

Senator Jacob Howard​

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

 

[JohnDB]

 

[MisterBeale]

MisterBeale.... Let me ask you a logical question that should clear up your confusion.

If all foreigner and alien, (which are synonymous,) born on this soil are not citizens at birth as you claim the Howard statement meant, (which it does not), then why would he even need to describe the children of foreign ambassadors and ministry diplomats, when they would already be included in the group of foreigners you claim are excluded from their child's birthright citizenship?

This is why you, and others, are wrong on Howard's argument/statement.

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United states, but will include every other class of persons."

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United states, but will include every other class of persons."

This is the list of persons that are not covered by the Amendment.

It includes embassadors (sic), foreigners and aliens.

It can't be more clear than that. This amendment is clearly meant for the children of US citizens and former slaves. It did not even include members of Indian nations, that would come much later with the Citizenship Act of 1924.

Why on Earth would you think this amendment covers the births of illegal aliens, when they didn't even think it should cover members of Native American nations?

I honestly thought you were smarter than this. I have never questioned your integrity before, but you are seriously making me reconsider on that point. I will still believe that you just don't understand this sentence, the meaning, and the history of our nation to figure out what the intent of the Amendment is, when it is spelled out for you.

Why would he include in this statement that families of embassadors (sic) are not included when he was making clear that all foreigners and aliens are not included? To make absolutely clear of who it covers, and who it does not.

Are you aware that babies of foreign diplomats that are born in the United States are not birthright citizens?

I have no idea why you are trying to twist this to mean something it does not.
Folks that don't let partisan ideology cloud their judgement and integrity can clearly understand which people were not intended to be covered by the 14th amendment.

 

[MisterBeale]

Senator Howard didn't list them as separate categories. He used "foreigners" and "aliens" as adjectives to describe the families of diplomats.

Seriously, that's what you are going with?

When adjectives are used to describe articles, they are NEVER separated by commas.

You are being manipulative by leaving off the conjunction after the list of articles. That is the ONLY way you could possibly make such an inane argument.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think your prediction is more hopeful wishing than anything.

Such a decision would create both international chaos and a new constitution without a constitutional convention.

Especially when the original Framers left a clear commentary communication on precisely what the ammendment's limits would be.

If you wish to change the constitution there are clearly written instructions on how such could be accomplished. However, we can't even get congress to do much of anything lately except go on break and trade stocks.

Go right ahead, because that is what you are going to have to do.