341–350 of 681 posts
Earlier 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,…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's tricky because dissenting doesn't necessarily mean you'd reach the opposite conclusion in every respect. In this case, I really doubt even the most conservative justices believe "birthright citizenship means whatever an Executive Order says it does." At a minimum, we know they aren't signing on to the reasoning the 5 in the majority used. And then we can learn whatever they feel like saying in the dissent, but a…
But since we have the dissent opinions, it's not tricky at all to see why they are dissenting. Alito and Thomas straight up believe that the constitution does not provide birthright citizenship and the executive order is valid. Gorsuch mostly agrees but makes an exception if the parents plan to stay in the US. Kavanaugh agrees that birthright citizenship is not provided by the constitution, instead he argues its a fe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That flies in the face of what I understand is true about diplomatic immunity. Citation required. As a less extreme example, diplomats can and DO park their vehicles illegally: in No Parking zones, Handicap Only zones, and blocking fire hydrants. Diplomat plates render the police unable to ticket them. It's civil not criminal courts, but for the exact reason that they are immune to our laws.
[flagged]
There's also the fact that Diplomatic Immunity is also a lot narrower than people think. Consular Officers are generally not covered by it, but then you get in to the de facto. Okay, NYPD sees consular plates and doesn't ticket a vehicle. Or tickets it but there's no enforcement, because "maybe it's the Ambassador's vehicle". And then a city, state or country is generally not going to make a scene that affects ambassadorial relations over a few hundred, or thousand, dollars of parking tickets.
[flagged]
I don't think the language is ambiguous at all , and I consider it shocking and beneath the dignity of the Court that this was not a unanimous decision (and that the case was taken at all).
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizenship means having political rights. If it's decided at some point that a martian may have political rights...then yes, as it stands, their offspring would have citizenship upon birth/ejection/hatching/transmogrification or whatever means of reproduction they use. This is really no different than if we decided that a dolphin or a naked mole rat are able to hold political rights. If an understanding that this is…
You are surely oversimplifying it. The amendment clearly says "born or naturalized"; can hatching or transmogrification be considered a birth? We need to look at the original meaning of the word "born" in 1868. Also, it does not say anything about having political rights, just about being a "person", which will surely start a separate debate :)
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.
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…
[flagged]
Why do people act like the sky is suddenly falling when the Court just keeps things as they have been for two and a half centuries?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fourteenth amendment doesn't say "within the jurisdiction" but "subject to the jurisdiction": if you break a window as a tourist, you expect to be prosecuted because you committed a crime within that jurisdiction, but you do not expect to be conscripted into military service or to pay income tax, because you are not subject to the jurisdiction. Birth tourism is definitely an issue for conservatives worried about…
What if you're in the US on a work visa, so you do expect to pay income tax but don't expect to be conscripted into military service? What's the correct preposition for that case?