4 ms·
I should be unanimous, it's what the constitution says. If you don't like it you need to go through the amendment process.
by blktiger 4mo ago
I should be unanimous, it's what the constitution says. If you don't like it you need to go through the amendment process.
- nonethewiser 4mo ago>I should be unanimous, it's what the constitution says Thats a tautology. “What the constitution says” is the thing in question.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- 5upplied_demand 4mo agoThe language couldn't be any clearer. The fact that it was questioned by people with a stated motive doesn't prove otherwise. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
- crote 4mo agoSure, but it leads to allowing for the possibility of interpreting "..the right to bear arms.." as "you are allowed to own the limbs of an Ursus arctos". There's plenty in the US constitution which is vaguely worded, but you have to twist its words an awful lot to deny birthright citizenship.
- sheept 4mo agoYes, and they can do that if they wanted to. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution.
- goatlover 4mo agoAnd if they do enough of that, the other two branches might eventually be motivated to take action to counter it, like packing the courts or impeachments. Or telling SCOTUS to enforce it, as one president did.
- crote 4mo agoIf we live in a world where words have no meaning and the definition of the Constitution can be interpreted to be literally anything depending on today's mood of the Supreme Court, why even bother writing a Constitution at all? Why not get rid of the whole charade and just replace it with "whoever is appointed to the Supreme Court can make up any law as they feel like it"? It has the same meaning, but it's an awful lot clearer! In fact, I think there's a term for a ruler with complete power who's there for life, something like an "absolute monarchy"?
- voakbasda 4mo agoIn the past decade, the Constitution hasn’t slowed down the courts from creatively interpreting its various clauses. Their decisions have effectively amended many of those fundamental (and arguably inalienable) rights. Repeatedly.
- arpinum 4mo ago> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... It's the second part that is in dispute and is not clear from the constitution's text what exactly it means and who it excludes. And yes, it has always excluded some people born within the borders, it is not a meaningless statement.
- Windchaser 4mo agoWell, no, but almost everyone inside US borders is subject to US laws. The exceptions are rare: people in foreign embassies (which is "foreign soil"), invading armies, and indigenous tribes on tribal land.
- rayiner 4mo ago[flagged]
- Tadpole9181 4mo agoOh, please, this is just blatant sanewashing. Anyone who does not have an explicit exclusion is under the jurisdiction of US laws while on US soil. There's zero room for ambiguity unless you're coming in bad faith with politically motivated intent. Or are you seriously arguing there's an interpretation where illegal immigrants can commit any crime they want and can't be deported?
- rayiner 4mo agoWhere does it say "jurisdiction" only refers to criminal law? Diplomats aren't excluded from being subject to civil laws for "commercial activities," and U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats in suits pertaining to such activities.
- Windchaser 4mo agoThis then seems like an argument that the children of diplomats should be US citizens, not an argument against naturalized birth for immigrants.
- wang_li 4mo agoThis trivial reading of the constitution doesn't align with the reality. Two simple exceptions and a third not so simple are children of diplomats, children of invading armies, and native americans, who required an act of congress to give citizenship at birth.