The Supreme Court and the "politics" of birthright citizenship and of course changing tunes of history.

[JoeB131]

I have no doubt they will not rule in his favor. But not for that reason.

Well, yes, they have their own credibility to consider. If SCOTUS just becomes, "The Constitution says what we say it says", then the temptation will be to stack the court every time and screw Congress. In 2029, President Kelly expands the court to 13 members. Then President Rubio expands it to 17. It would never end.

You need a better reason to overturn 127 years of precendent than, "I don't like brown people".

Trump hasn't presented one.

 

[Care4all]

Except it isnt.
And I dont give a damn what the SC said. They also said it was constitutional for the govt to segregate. Remember that?

It was understood prior to the 14th as ALL PERSONS under our jurisdiction.. but DredScott excluded slaves....everyone born on our soil, with few exceptions were citizens prior to the 14th...why would the 14th take that away from all Irish and English and French, and Danes and Scottish etc etc etc?

A/I
Yes, the Irish began immigrating in massive numbers during the Great Famine (1845–1852), well before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.


Their children were considered U.S. citizens at birth.


Prior to the 14th Amendment, the United States followed English common law known as jus soli (right of the soil). This doctrine established that any child born within the territory and jurisdiction of the country was automatically a citizen, regardless of their parents' nationality.


The only major exception to this rule before the 14th Amendment was the Supreme Court's infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which ruled that enslaved and free Black people could not be citizens. The 14th Amendment was specifically written after the Civil War to overturn that ruling and permanently lock birthright citizenship into the Constitution.

 

[Care4all]

All immigrants simply signed a form stating from here on out, their allegiance was to the Usa,

if they wanted to be naturalized and become citizens they applied for citizenship after being here 5 years with a witness of their good standing.

Before choosing citizenship, their children born here, were citizens.

 

[TNHarley]

Well, yes, they have their own credibility to consider. If SCOTUS just becomes, "The Constitution says what we say it says", then the temptation will be to stack the court every time and screw Congress. In 2029, President Kelly expands the court to 13 members. Then President Rubio expands it to 17. It would never end.

You need a better reason to overturn 127 years of precendent than, "I don't like brown people".

Trump hasn't presented one.

Thats what SCs have been doing for generations.
And its nto what they said. I am going by what the Founders said. The actual amendment debates.
You can ignore that all you want. I dont give a ****

 

[Care4all]

Thats what SCs have been doing for generations.
And its nto what they said. I am going by what the Founders said. The actual amendment debates.
You can ignore that all you want. I dont give a ****

In the debates there was opposition to the ALL PERSONS part....I asked A/I the results of the opposition to the 14th...

A/I

Yes, there was active opposition. During the 1866 floor debates, a group of Democrats and conservative Republicans fiercely argued against the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

• The Opposition: Senators like Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania and Garrett Davis of Kentucky argued against extending birthright citizenship to the children of Asian immigrants and Romani people.
• The Argument: They feared the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was too broad and would grant automatic citizenship to children of foreigners who did not owe exclusive political allegiance to the United States.
• The Outcome: Their attempts to narrow or block the clause failed. Congress passed the amendment by the required two-thirds majority in June 1866, and it was ratified in 1868.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Of course, that is bullshit.

No, your position is that.

 

[TNHarley]

No, your position is that.

You sure showed me.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Thats what SCs have been doing for generations.
And its nto what they said. I am going by what the Founders said. The actual amendment debates.
You can ignore that all you want. I dont give a ****

The amendment debates almost eighty years after the Founders. Almost 160 years have passed since then. The law will be with SCOTUS says it is, not you, not me.

 

[Blaster]

The amendment debates almost eighty years after the Founders. Almost 160 years have passed since then. The law will be with SCOTUS says it is, not you, not me.

SCOTUS isn't always right.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Yes, I did.

No, your position is that.

TNHarley: You sure showed me.