Closing Thought–31Oct18–#2

Oh goody….looks like we may have a constitutional law battle on our hands……why?  It seems that Our Dear Supreme Leader has decided that he will try to make invalid parts of the US Constitution…..namely the 14th amendment…..

Whether President Trump can end birthright citizenship with an executive order comes down to one’s reading of the 14th Amendment. As NPR explains in a fact-check piece, a “small but vocal group of conservative legal scholars” have zeroed in on five crucial words, bolded here: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Those scholars say those words have been misinterpreted and that the authors’ true intention was that citizenship not be extended to the children of noncitizens. More:

  • The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board agrees with NPR’s take and gives more historical background, writing “‘jurisdiction’ is well understood as referring to the territory where the force of law applies, and that means it applies to nearly everyone on US soil. The exceptions in 1868 were diplomats (who have sovereign immunity) and Native Americans on tribal lands. Congress later granted Native Americans birth citizenship while diminishing tribal sovereignty.”
  • On Twitter Wednesday, Trump referenced those key words in making his argument to the contrary. He wrote in a trio of tweets (here, here, and here): “So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other. It is not covered by the 14th Amendment because of the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Many legal scholars agree….. ….Harry Reid was right in 1993, before he and the Democrats went insane and started with the Open Borders (which brings massive Crime) ‘stuff.’ Don’t forget the nasty term Anchor Babies. I will keep our Country safe. This case will be settled by the United States Supreme Court! The World is using our laws to our detriment. They laugh at the Stupidity they see!”
  • Lawyer George Conway, husband to Kellyanne Conway, aired his view in an op-ed written with Neal Katyal for the Washington Post: “Sometimes the Constitution’s text is plain as day and bars what politicians seek to do. That’s the case with President Trump’s proposal to end ‘birthright citizenship’ tendment was written after the Civil War with former slaves in mind. Conway and Katyal elaborate in their op-ed: “Birthright citizenship sprang from the ashes of the worst Supreme Court decision in US history, Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision that said that slaves, and the children of slaves, could not be citizens of the United States. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans was shed to repudiate that idea.”hrough an executive order.”
  • Reuters adds more history, reporting that the amendment was written after the Civil War with former slaves in mind. Conway and Katyal elaborate in their op-ed: “Birthright citizenship sprang from the ashes of the worst Supreme Court decision in US history, Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision that said that slaves, and the children of slaves, could not be citizens of the United States. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans was shed to repudiate that idea.”

Just something to think about…a closing thought as it were…..

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Closing Thought–31Oct18–#2

  1. We need to make that part of the constitution do what it was intended to do in the first place and destroy all license for criminals to take advantage of our society with their sexual activities.

      1. That is not how it works…..it will take a convention to change things……and if we do that to the 14th then the 2nd may be next or the 1st……chuq

      2. I don’t know that it’s necessary to “make war” on birthright citizenship, but there is nothing odd about opposition to it. In fact, the United States is one of the few countries in the world that confers citizenship on illegal aliens based on nothing other than the happenstance of their birth within national borders. I am not suggesting that the laws of other countries shed light on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment; just that birthright citizenship is rightly seen as bad policy in most of the world. (Somehow, I suspect that the Supreme Court’s progressives, who believe in consulting foreign law when “interpreting” the U.S. Constitution, would resist that impulse when it comes to birthright citizenship.)

      3. Our Judicial System has been operating on the principles of International Maritime Law for some time now — thus the gold braid on the edge of the American Flag in the court rooms.

      4. I don’t believe maritime law would be used to decide this question…but Hell who knows with the morons we have running the government. chuq

      5. The meaning of the 2nd ha should been changed and reinterpreted back and forth several times. And needs to be again. The current interpretation a misreading if it’s meaning.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.