Birthright Citizenship---Is It Time To Deep Six It?

[Magox]

I won't debate the interpretation of law or the constitution, because it isn't my strong suit, or will I even get to the political ramifications although I find it to be toxic. Everyone can find their own constitutional lawyer to have their own interpretation of the 14th amendment and from what I've read there are at least as many Conservative Constitutional lawyers that take the opposite view as many of you have.

 

So with that said, if this were to be challenged, it would reach the Supreme Court and knowing that at least half the conservative minds side with leaving it as is and knowing that the liberal justices are all a bunch of activists, the court would rule at least 6-3 in favor at keeping it as it is. Kennedy and Roberta would side with the liberal Justices.

[B-Large]

I won't debate the interpretation of law or the constitution, because it isn't my strong suit, or will I even get to the political ramifications although I find it to be toxic. Everyone can find their own constitutional lawyer to have their own interpretation of the 14th amendment and from what I've read there are at least as many Conservative Constitutional lawyers that take the opposite view as many of you have.

So with that said, if this were to be challenged, it would reach the Supreme Court and knowing that at least half the conservative minds side with leaving it as is and knowing that the liberal justices are all a bunch of activists, the court would rule at least 6-3 in favor at keeping it as it is. Kennedy and Roberta would side with the liberal Justices.

Its easy to leave be. Hence Trumps attraction.

[Rob's House]

I won't debate the interpretation of law or the constitution, because it isn't my strong suit, or will I even get to the political ramifications although I find it to be toxic. Everyone can find their own constitutional lawyer to have their own interpretation of the 14th amendment and from what I've read there are at least as many Conservative Constitutional lawyers that take the opposite view as many of you have.

 

So with that said, if this were to be challenged, it would reach the Supreme Court and knowing that at least half the conservative minds side with leaving it as is and knowing that the liberal justices are all a bunch of activists, the court would rule at least 6-3 in favor at keeping it as it is. Kennedy and Roberta would side with the liberal Justices.

 

Most, if not all of the "conservative" lawyers that subscribe to this theory are either wholly ignorant on the topic, or more likely, they're simply saying what they find to be more politically advantageous. It actually takes a great stretch of the imagination, and some interesting mental gymnastics, to arrive at the conclusion that the constitution guarantees citizenship to any child born on US soil regardless of the situation. Most of these guys know this, but like you said, that position is politically toxic, and these guys are in the business of politics first.

 

What you just described is exactly why the constitution is essentially a dead letter. Any constitution is only effective to the extent it is followed by men, which means it is only effective to the extent that the government respects it, which means it's only effective to the extent that the public holds the government accountable to it. The public, however, has accepted the Supreme Court's self-given power of Judicial Review, which has become a process by which the constitution is amended, often and materially, by a bare majority of 9 politically appointed lawyers in robes who are accountable to no one. That's not a legitimate, nor constitutionally prescribed role for the judiciary, but the public has accepted that it is. Therefore, in effect it is.

 

That means that if the Supreme Court tomorrow declares that the constitution provides for, or even mandates an authoritarian, libertarian, or totalitarian government, then it is so. Because even if the constitution says nothing of the sort, the constitution is now just a body of case law that the public accepts as legitimate. And that case law can and does change all the time on a 5-4 vote. And that ever-evolving body of case law is the only limit on the power of congress and the power of the President. And we've all seen how willing the court is to grant new and expansive powers to both, just as it has done for itself. That's the constitution.

 

 

 

 

Edit: It's worth mentioning that the issue in question isn't whether it's unconstitutional for congress to grant citizenship to anchor babies, but rather if it would be unconstitutional for Congress to deny such citizenship. So it would only reach the court if Congress actively sought to change current procedure. A responsible reading of the constitution would acknowledge that the decision is left to the discretion of Congress, but it's not a given that the Supreme Court justices would rule responsibly.

 

Edit 2: It's also worth noting that you can support the continued practice of birthright citizenship while acknowledging that it is not a constitutional right without any concern of hypocrisy or contradiction. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Rob's House

[Tiberius]

He states as a matter of fact that the 14th grants birthright citizenship for the children of illega

It's relevant that is says AND rather than OR because it shows that they are two distinct conditions, both of which must be met, before citizenship is conferred. If mere presence on US soil were sufficient to establish jurisdiction then it would be unnecessarily cumulative to include the language about jurisdiction. There is a presumption that such language is not superfluous. Plus, "jurisdiction" in this context refers to control; the kind of control a government has over its citizens and resident aliens. The government does not exercise that control over people who are undocumented and within the country illegally. It can't. Ostensibly, it doesn't even have records or knowledge of their existence. [/color

Like I said, the rest of the article is pretty sensible, but on this issue he's off the mark.

Who is undocumented? The parents or the baby just born? Of course the baby is undocumented until he/she is born. Then they are documented and citizens. Your argument for illegals not being subject to the laws in our jurisdiction is silly. If an illegal committs a crime, can he/she be arrested? If while under arrest they have a baby in the police station would that satisfy you that they are under the "control" of the government? And seriously, I hope you did not hurt yourself doing contortions to make the 14th amendment conform to your views

Rights don't come from government.

 

Sure they do. What other authority has the power to declare and protect individual rights against those that would deny them to us?

[Tiberius]

A responsible reading of the constitution would acknowledge that the decision is left to the discretion of Congress, but it's not a given that the Supreme Court justices would rule responsibly.

 

exclusive.

Where are you getting this from? "All" seems pretty straight forward. Congress is not included in any way.

 

As to the jurisdiction point, I'd theorize that since the country had just been torn asunder by the slaveholders, jurisdiction was something that needed to be emphasized. The Uninted States had the final say over jurisdiction, citizenship and rights, not the states. This was new, the idea that the Federal government was going to grant citizenship to those others had said were outside the citizenship group.

[Rob's House]

Who is undocumented? The parents or the baby just born? Of course the baby is undocumented until he/she is born. Then they are documented and citizens. Your argument for illegals not being subject to the laws in our jurisdiction is silly. If an illegal committs a crime, can he/she be arrested? If while under arrest they have a baby in the police station would that satisfy you that they are under the "control" of the government? And seriously, I hope you did not hurt yourself doing contortions to make the 14th amendment conform to your views

 

You're so out of your depth on this that it would be embarrassing if you even knew enough to understand what to be embarrassed about.

Where are you getting this from? "All" seems pretty straight forward. Congress is not included in any way.

 

As to the jurisdiction point, I'd theorize that since the country had just been torn asunder by the slaveholders, jurisdiction was something that needed to be emphasized. The Uninted States had the final say over jurisdiction, citizenship and rights, not the states. This was new, the idea that the Federal government was going to grant citizenship to those others had said were outside the citizenship group.

"The Congress shall have power...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization..." - Article 1, Sec 8.

[Tiberius]

You're so out of your depth on this that it would be embarrassing if you even knew enough to understand what to be embarrassed about.

 

"The Congress shall have power...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization..." - Article 1, Sec 8.

Ok, just for the record, I consider you a low life cretin and not very intelligent. That's just to answer you silly insults, which you feel the need to throw out there to cover for your understandable insecurity about your lack of intelligence. Done

 

Now, as to your point about Article 1 section 8, Congress did establish a uniform rule for those born here when they created the 14th amendment. They set it in stone. Done.

[Azalin]

Sure they do. What other authority has the power to declare and protect individual rights against those that would deny them to us?

 

They come from our creator, and are protected by we the people. I find it difficult to believe that even you could be so obtuse.

[Tiberius]

They come from our creator, and are protected by we the people. I find it difficult to believe that even you could be so obtuse.

They had rights and liberties in ancient Athens, and that was before your creator was dreamed up by men.

[Rob's House]

Ok, just for the record, I consider you a low life cretin and not very intelligent. That's just to answer you silly insults, which you feel the need to throw out there to cover for your understandable insecurity about your lack of intelligence. Done

 

Now, as to your point about Article 1 section 8, Congress did establish a uniform rule for those born here when they created the 14th amendment. They set it in stone. Done.

1. Congress doesn't amend the constitution; amendments have to be ratified by the states.

 

2. Even if it did, the 14th still doesn't say what you claim it does.

[DC Tom]

They had rights and liberties in ancient Athens, and that was before your creator was dreamed up by men.

 

No, they didn't. Not only did they not have a concept of rights, but Athenian democracy was contrary to the very idea of civil rights.

 

How you can be so consistently ignorant on so many topics is amazing. You'd think, after all your bull ****, you would have accidentally backed in to a fact at least once.

[Azalin]

They had rights and liberties in ancient Athens, and that was before your creator was dreamed up by men.

 

There's an impressive amount of stupid squeezed into that one sentence. Is that what you actually believe, or just a random regurgitation of words spilling from your perpetually open mouth?

Edited August 23, 2015 by Azalin

[/dev/null]

Sure they do. What other authority has the power to declare and protect individual rights against those that would deny them to us?

 

[unbillievable]

Gatorman would make a perfect citizen of North Korea.

[DC Tom]

Gatorman would make a perfect citizen of North Korea.

 

Why not? The DPRK is a big supporter of human rights - they've got "Democratic" right in the name.

[Tiberius]

There's an impressive amount of stupid squeezed into that one sentence. Is that what you actually believe, or just a random regurgitation of words spilling from your perpetually open mouth?

You think there's a thing called a creator that gave us our rights, lol. Sorry, I find that a bit wacko. And no, my observation about people having rights who had never heard of your creator is far from random. Many Humanists of the Renaissance asked the same question in challenging the authority of the church 500 years ago.

1. Congress doesn't amend the constitution; amendments have to be ratified by the states.

2. Even if it did, the 14th still doesn't say what you claim it does.

The Radical Republicans in Congress wrote the 14th Amendment. Congress created it, then the states ratified. You are talking in circles again.

[Azalin]

You think there's a thing called a creator that gave us our rights, lol. Sorry, I find that a bit wacko. And no, my observation about people having rights who had never heard of your creator is far from random. Many Humanists of the Renaissance asked the same question in challenging the authority of the church 500 years ago.

 

 

Hey Einstein - note that 'creator' is not necessarily a synonym for 'God'.

 

Read a book, for crying out loud.

[Tiberius]

 

Hey Einstein - note that 'creator' is not necessarily a synonym for 'God'.

 

Read a book, for crying out loud.

Let's hear it! Who is this creator of our rights then? Jack Frost?

[Azalin]

Let's hear it! Who is this creator of our rights then? Jack Frost?

 

I'll say it once. Pay attention:

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

Creator is not simply a direct synonym for God. You don't have to believe in God to have been created. In this case, Creator can just as easily mean the set of circumstances that caused humanity, both as a race and as individuals, to exist. It can be taken as a religious reference, OR a secular reference. By virtue of our very existence, we are endowed with certain unalienable rights. The entire concept that identifies out rights is also the same thing that makes us all equal as human beings.

 

This is not an argument. It's a statement of fact.

[DC Tom]

 

I'll say it once. Pay attention:

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

Creator is not simply a direct synonym for God. You don't have to believe in God to have been created. In this case, Creator can just as easily mean the set of circumstances that caused humanity, both as a race and as individuals, to exist. It can be taken as a religious reference, OR a secular reference. By virtue of our very existence, we are endowed with certain unalienable rights. The entire concept that identifies out rights is also the same thing that makes us all equal as human beings.

 

This is not an argument. It's a statement of fact.

 

"Creator" also doesn't refer to creating rights, in the context. The "Creator" creates people; those people are endowed with rights when they are created. Rights are therefore integral to the nature of being, and not created.