3 ms·

I guess I should not be surprised that you would immediately try a rhetorical stunt like dismissing the precedential case as 'a weird fucking case' without eval

I guess I should not be surprised that you would immediately try a rhetorical stunt like dismissing the precedential case as 'a weird fucking case' without evaluating its content. I understand it's a lot of work to read.

rayiner 1y ago
I read the whole case. It’s a weird fucking case. It spends a tremendous amount of ink addressing irrelevant issues (the Napoleonic Code? wtf?) and very little addressing the relevant legislative history. It seems obvious that the 14th amendment meant to reflect the very similar language of the civil rights act of 1866: > all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States What does “and not subject to any foreign power” mean? Nobody knows because Wong Kim Ark doesn’t bother to actually try and address that point. That would also explain why Congress found it necessary to confer citizenship on Indians by legislation in 1924. To be clear, I think the specific holding is correct. The 14th amendment is an equal protection amendment, and removed Congress’s power to discriminate citizenship based on race. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether the 14th amendment also removed Congress’s power to qualify citizenship based on legal immigration status or other grounds. It doesn’t purport to be a birthright citizenship order. Maybe the Court should look into the “emanations from penumbras” of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to see what they can find in there.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  What does “and not subject to any foreign power” mean? Nobody knows because Wong Kim Ark doesn’t bother to actually try and address that point. That's a lie. The opinion does engage with that question in depth, and also digs into why the language of the 14th amendment differs from that of the 1866 civil rights act. You're trying to shift attention away from the text of the 14th amendment (which is the supreme law of the land) to the text of an earlier law whose meaning you think is easier to argue over. I encourage anyone who has a few hours to take a good look at the case and see for themselves. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 Maybe the Court should look into the “emanations from penumbras” of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to see what they can find in there. Weasel words, linking the case to another (Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)) hated by conservatives so as to throw shade on the former.

rayiner 1y ago

I read the whole case. It’s a weird fucking case. It spends a tremendous amount of ink addressing irrelevant issues (the Napoleonic Code? wtf?) and very little addressing the relevant legislative history. It seems obvious that the 14th amendment meant to reflect the very similar language of the civil rights act of 1866: > all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States What does “and not subject to any foreign power” mean? Nobody knows because Wong Kim Ark doesn’t bother to actually try and address that point. That would also explain why Congress found it necessary to confer citizenship on Indians by legislation in 1924. To be clear, I think the specific holding is correct. The 14th amendment is an equal protection amendment, and removed Congress’s power to discriminate citizenship based on race. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether the 14th amendment also removed Congress’s power to qualify citizenship based on legal immigration status or other grounds. It doesn’t purport to be a birthright citizenship order. Maybe the Court should look into the “emanations from penumbras” of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to see what they can find in there.

anigbrowl 1y ago
What does “and not subject to any foreign power” mean? Nobody knows because Wong Kim Ark doesn’t bother to actually try and address that point. That's a lie. The opinion does engage with that question in depth, and also digs into why the language of the 14th amendment differs from that of the 1866 civil rights act. You're trying to shift attention away from the text of the 14th amendment (which is the supreme law of the land) to the text of an earlier law whose meaning you think is easier to argue over. I encourage anyone who has a few hours to take a good look at the case and see for themselves. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 Maybe the Court should look into the “emanations from penumbras” of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to see what they can find in there. Weasel words, linking the case to another (Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)) hated by conservatives so as to throw shade on the former.