Trump admin faces tough questions from skeptical Supreme Court over ‘quirky’ birthright citizenship arguments
“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” he said.nypost.com
By Ryan King and Josh Christenson
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justices from across the ideological spectrum pummeled a lawyer for the Trump administration with biting questions during oral arguments Wednesday over the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
While it wasn’t fully clear which way the high court will go in the landmark case, Republican-appointed justices made clear they were far from a lock for the administration — all while President Trump was in the room as the first sitting president in US history to observe oral arguments in person.
“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Chief Justice John Roberts asked US Solicitor General John Sauer early on.
Comment:
‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just means citizen.
They are not trying to abolish birthright citizenship.
They want to make it clear that birthright citizenship was only intended for American citizens.
It was not intended for foreign citizens who illegally entered our country.
However I don't have confidence that the Supreme Court will rule that birthright citizenship is only for American citizens.
No mention of 'birthright' citizenship in the Constitution. This should be in the hands of Congress and or the executive. The 14th amendment codified the 1866 Civil Rights act to avert Jim Crow in the south. Children of illegals are NOT covered by this.Trump admin faces tough questions from skeptical Supreme Court over ‘quirky’ birthright citizenship arguments
“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” he said.
By Ryan King and Josh Christenson
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justices from across the ideological spectrum pummeled a lawyer for the Trump administration with biting questions during oral arguments Wednesday over the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
While it wasn’t fully clear which way the high court will go in the landmark case, Republican-appointed justices made clear they were far from a lock for the administration — all while President Trump was in the room as the first sitting president in US history to observe oral arguments in person.
“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Chief Justice John Roberts asked US Solicitor General John Sauer early on.
Comment:
‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just means citizen.
They are not trying to abolish birthright citizenship.
They want to make it clear that birthright citizenship was only intended for American citizens.
It was not intended for foreign citizens who illegally entered our country.
However I don't have confidence that the Supreme Court will rule that birthright citizenship is only for American citizens.
The author of the 14th (Sen Jacob Howard said >> "".[E]very 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."
Is Unkotare disagreeing with me, or with Sen Jacob Howard ?
Where does it say that? It doesn't and that is your problem, isn't it?
It's death by a thousand cuts. This is just the latest.
And a lifetime free pass to the theatre.
So, what happens if the baby citizens of the U.S. return with their parents to a country that doesn't recognize dual citizenship. Are those babies returned to the U.S. without their parents?
Could you clarify that, with a bit more information ?
Both authors of the 14th amendment said it. (Howard & Bingham)
That's what I'm asking for.
"Foreign countries" have their own laws. We have our Constitution.
In this case we are imposing our laws on other countries, unless they agree to it.
How so?
