If you shift from being a living constitutionalist to a strict textualist based on the case in question, then what you really are is a machiavellian.
[deleted]
Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
431–440 of 681 posts
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#432You can be pro/fine with legal immigration (and moderate/non-partisan) and still not think birthright citizenship is a good idea (like I do). Also ~95% of countries don't have unconditional birthright citizenship. It creates perverse incentives. Reminds me of legal abortion: practically everywhere in the world has it. If you are not in that vast majority you should be taking a very close look at yourself/things. So y…
>It creates perverse incentives.
It also helped vault America into being the wealthiest country in the world.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it really isn’t. Immigrants are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As Wong Kim stated the only way not to be is if the government has given you permission to be here without being under jurisdiction like a diplomat or if you’re part of an invading force. Every other person in the us is expected to follow us laws. Just because they don’t doesn’t mean the us doesn’t have jurisdiction.
Were you so sure yesterday that the Court would decide the way it did? I'm sure that with a different set of justices, the result could've been different. A "clear" law would likely not result in a 6:3 vote. There are enough cases in the Supreme Court that get 9:0, those can probably be called "clear".
Every court before the Supreme Court completely dismissed the attempt to kill the 14th amendment.
The Supreme Court is more and more packed with dishonest, racist Republican political hacks who try to twist words to overturn centuries of precedent.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#434Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#435If you shift from being a living constitutionalist to a strict textualist based on the case in question, then what you really are is a machiavellian.
It's not so clear cut to me (looking from outside).
It makes sense to interpret some cases in historical context and others not, because some cases are not as much affected by the difference in context.
That's not being machiavellian - that's avoiding an one size fits all approach.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is the full text of the relevant section of the 14th: > 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,…
The word jurisdiction is where it gets confusing. The meaning of that word does not map 1:1 to its modern usage. To wit, if we read it as "subject to the laws of the land", then the invading army exception does not make sense, invading soldiers are subject to the laws of the United States and have been tried and convinced of violating them. Note, diplomat exception still makes sense, they _are not_ subject to the law…
> To wit, if we read it as "subject to the laws of the land", then the invading army exception does not make sense, invading soldiers are subject to the laws of the United States and have been tried and convinced of violating them. Note, diplomat exception still makes sense, they _are not_ subject to the laws of the land.
I don't agree with your assertion here. Do you have more details on the claim that "invading soldiers [...] have been tried and convinced of violating them [US Laws]"?
As I understand it, invading soldiers are not subject to the laws of the United States nor are they protected by the bill of rights - instead they are enemy combatants and subject to military force. You don't arrest and charge active combatants, you fight them. If they surrender they become prisoners of war and would be covered under the treaties that apply to POWs, not civilian laws. They don't become citizens by surrendering.
I suspect the gray area would be around terrorists and stateless combatants, but the general principle that "people who are operating under the orders of a foreign government are not subject to the laws of the united states, but rather bound by the treaties between the US and their foreign state" would still apply.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
My favorite argument (presented by a constitutional scholar) against originalism is that a constitution interpreted precisely as written by wealthy, landed 18th century white men disenfranchises every person who is not a wealthy, landed 18th century white man, roughly in proportion to how much they share in common with such a person. Edit: the scholar is Kate Shaw. She presents her arguments a lot more coherently tha…
Following the implications of this argument leads to some pretty hairy places. If a person is incapable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc position, then how is a fair law even possible? Or perhaps the argument implies that people like that constitutional scholar have reached a state of purely detached enlightenment, and thus are exempt from this logic?
>If a person is incapable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc position, then how is a fair law even possible?
An entirely fair law might not be possible, at least as long as people with specific class/race/gender interests overwhelmingly influence it. But a somewhat fair law or a law fairer than another, is.
And, at least as I understand it, the scholar doesn't say that nobody is ever "capable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc position" in general. Just that those making the constitution weren't that good at it.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it insane?
Some woman who is 8 months pregnant comes to the US on a tourist visa and gives birth, then goes home with the baby. And then somehow that kid gets automatic US citizenship. And it applies even if the mother is not even legally allowed in the country. And you think that is not insane?
It’s no skin off my back. Why should I give a shit?
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress defines most every able body male as part of the unorganized militia and there is no public armory for them to store their arms (this only available to organized militia) at or use leaving only a private armory (consistent with historical at time of founding where private persons stored their militia weapon at home), so I'm not sure it makes much difference in practice whether the right ascribed to the peopl…
Congress defines… historical precedent… but we were talking about a plain-text reading of the Constitution.
We weren't, if we were this conversation couldn't get here. If we were you couldn't play the militia fuck fuck game, since the right to keep and bear arms is ascribed to the people and not the militia.
The answer is easy in the plain-text case, whether you are associated with the militia is moot, as the plain text unambiguously says the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
It's only in the non plaintext case can you start handwaving that right is restricted to militia yada yada.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
My favorite argument (presented by a constitutional scholar) against originalism is that a constitution interpreted precisely as written by wealthy, landed 18th century white men disenfranchises every person who is not a wealthy, landed 18th century white man, roughly in proportion to how much they share in common with such a person. Edit: the scholar is Kate Shaw. She presents her arguments a lot more coherently tha…
We have no concept of free speech, due process, or individual rights in Asia where I’m from. Where I’m from, if the community doesn’t like you, we can just drive you out of the community. Am I “disenfranchised” by having to live in a liberal democracy created by white men?
Well, the same white men created Jim Crow and seggregation.
If you were a black man would you have been disenfranchised when those laws were in force?
I'd say yes.
The fact that it was/is worse elsewhere, e.g. in some places in Asia, doesn't make the critique (of how white Constitutional/law makers historically disenfranchised certain demographics in the US) invalid.