Hey Constitutional Originalists ...

#2
#2
lawgator1 said:
What's up with this?

Legislators set sights on 'anchor babies' - CNN.com

The Fourteenth Amendment says:

Section 1. 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.



So how is this misapplied?
Click to expand...

Being a lawyer and determining the intent of the law makers in this case, you should be able to pick out the application pretty easy. I am always reminded when the constitution is brought up "the founding fathers could not envision the future on this".

I doubt in 1868 (IIRC) they envisioned millions of illegal immigrates crossing the border, and having kids not only is the kid a legal citizen, but by default his parents are not gonna be sent home because they are the guardians.
 
#3
#3
BeecherVol said:
Being a lawyer and determining the intent of the law makers in this case, you should be able to pick out the application pretty easy. I am always reminded when the constitution is brought up "the founding fathers could not envision the future on this".

I doubt in 1868 (IIRC) they envisioned millions of illegal immigrates crossing the border, and having kids not only is the kid a legal citizen, but by default his parents are not gonna be sent home because they are the guardians.
Click to expand...


But wait.

Right wing constitutional scholars like yourself DEMAND that the Constitution be interpreted EXACTLY as it is written.

You mean the right wingers are changing their procedure for interpreting the Constitution so as to serve their own short-term political goal? Get out!
 
#4
#4
the UK took away this provision in the 1980s. It originally was a post slavery amendment intended to make sure that people couldn't take away citizenship from children of slaves. it's about time it gets repealed.
 
#5
#5
lawgator1 said:
But wait.

Right wing constitutional scholars like yourself DEMAND that the Constitution be interpreted EXACTLY as it is written.

You mean the right wingers are changing their procedure for interpreting the Constitution so as to serve their own short-term political goal? Get out!
Click to expand...

you realize it's an amendment right? or do you think booze should still be banned too?
 
#6
#6
lawgator1 said:
But wait.

Right wing constitutional scholars like yourself DEMAND that the Constitution be interpreted EXACTLY as it is written.

You mean the right wingers are changing their procedure for interpreting the Constitution so as to serve their own short-term political goal? Get out!
Click to expand...

Not much to interpret, the 14th doesn't mention allowing law to be broken to gain an advantage, not just the kid, but its parents as well.

I guess in your opinion that makes it right, which is not hard to believe.
 
#10
#10
LG, since you are against strict interpretation then you should support the effort to change the view of anchor babies - you know, since the Constitution should reflect current times and public sentiments.
 
#11
#11
droski said:
the 21st amendment was there for what 10 years? it existing doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be repealed.
Click to expand...

Not sure the 14th needs repealing as much as revising. A couple extra clauses would close the hole to citizenship attained by law breaking. Of course politically speaking there is much to be lost in this case. Which is why LG is here to enlighten us.
 
#12
#12
the funny part about his "constitutional originalists" post is that the 14th amendment was never part of the original constitution (arguably none of them were). only first 10 amendments were created by the founding fathers or otherwise called the bill of rights. someone needs to brush up on his constitutional law.
 
#13
#13
droski said:
the funny part about his "constitutional originalists" post is that the 14th amendment was never part of the original constitution (arguably none of them were). only first 10 amendments were created by the founding fathers or otherwise called the bill of rights. someone needs to brush up on his constitutional law.
Click to expand...


I've actually read the debate about much of this and 42 u.s.c. s1983 in the Cong Rec.

You?
 
#14
#14
Where does it say that the parents of said babies are also granted citizenship? Let the babies stay, they can go into the adoption system where they will be placed quickly (and at a nice profit for the adoption agency or government). The parents can go back to their original country. Problem solved.
 
#16
#16
What if...the mother is lying with her body in Mexico and actually shoots the baby out projectile style.... and without touching the ground the baby lands in Texas?
 
#18
#18
The point is that the right wing loves to drape itself in the Constitution, claim to be pure and loyal to it, and to criticize anyone who suggests a reading tempered by more modern considerations .... unless they don't like the result.
 
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
The point is that the right wing loves to drape itself in the Constitution, claim to be pure and loyal to it, and to criticize anyone who suggests a reading tempered by more modern considerations .... unless they don't like the result.
Click to expand...

so it's not relavant to your stupid argument that this amendment was created 100 years after the original constitution?
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
The point is that the right wing loves to drape itself in the Constitution, claim to be pure and loyal to it, and to criticize anyone who suggests a reading tempered by more modern considerations .... unless they don't like the result.
Click to expand...

please explain what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means then. Many who were around when it was written have voiced their opinion but would be interested to hear a more modern version
 
#21
#21
droski said:
so it's not relavant to your stupid argument that this amendment was created 100 years after the original constitution?
Click to expand...


Nope. Its in there.

Therefore, according to many, it must be interpreted word for word.

Like the Bible.
 
#22
#22
utvolpj said:
please explain what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means then. Many who were around when it was written have voiced their opinion but would be interested to hear a more modern version
Click to expand...


As written, it means subject to their exercise of police powers.

But that is as written. Do you have some argument as to why that means something other than as written?

Doesn't matter as we are, according to the right, bound to reject an interpretation. We must adhere to the exact words.
 
#23
#23
lawgator1 said:
Nope. Its in there.

Therefore, according to many, it must be interpreted word for word.

Like the Bible.
Click to expand...

i suggest you switch your thread title than

i don't recall anyone arguing that the anything not written by the founding fathers should be interpreted "word for word."
 
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
As written, it means subject to their exercise of police powers.

But that is as written. Do you have some argument as to why that means something other than as written?

Doesn't matter as we are, according to the right, bound to reject an interpretation. We must adhere to the exact words.
Click to expand...

you should probably read up on it then. The reasoning for the words is out there but since the word "originalists" is in the thread title...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top