4 ms·
It doesn’t cover diplomats either because courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain non-criminal matter. > vast majority of folks arguing against
by rayiner 4mo ago
It doesn’t cover diplomats either because courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain non-criminal matter.
> vast majority of folks arguing against it are doing so in bad faith
What’s “bad faith” about it?
- HelloMcFly 4mo agoIn my view: the lack of engagement with the historical record. This topic - and the meaning and expected outcomes of the wording for the amendment - were discussed and debated as part of the open record. Senator Cowan thought the phrasing created a loophole for birthright citizenship, and the amendment creators explicitly, overtly, repeatedly agreed with his interpretation of the phrasing and defended it as deliberate policy. As I posted elsewhere, you can read some of this for yourself: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjustice/ch5/01/#:~:text=The%20proposition%20before%20us%20.%20.%20.,that%20they%20shall%20be%20citizens. https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjusti... (CTRL+F "If my friend from Pennsylvania" for a quite pertinent line).