There is a small correction to be made: there are three cases touching on birthright Citizenship rather than two. There is also the 1884 case Elk v Wilkins (112 U.S. 94 (1884)). It also works against the claim of birthright citizenship.
Good discussion. As I said in a previous note if the parent(s) are illegal and the parent(s) is expelled from the US they are in charge of the kid whether born here or not. If they take the kid back to their country, fine. If they leave the kid here then the kid goes into foster care or gets adopted.
Once again I say: I am in AWE of your mind, Peter!
It looks as though ‘lawfare’ is going to be ramped up again by the Democrats, and then the Trump administration will be compelled to do counter-lawfare. Fine. Hash it all out in the courts for years, get clarifying Supreme Court rulings, have the Truth get dragged out into the open and our Constitution reaffirmed. It will take years, but you are CORRECT in your reasoning, Peter, and I trust that our system of checks and balances will ultimately get our nation back on track. Thank you, Founding Fathers!
They will push the limits, personalize the attacks, scream that Trump is indeed being Hitler, and so on in a depressingly nauseating tirade of legal abuses and flimsy lawfare meant chiefly to continue the false narrative they’ve been propagating for years.
But you are correct, ultimately the lawfare will be resolved by the actual legal-system processes. I love America!
Ultimately, it will come down to the Supreme Court issuing a ruling on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction."
Interestingly, where I think the "experts"--who, let's be clear, are working backwards from their preferred legal outcome of birthright citizenship for all to assemble their legal logic--miss the mark is in the particular wording of the 14th Amendment.
Citizenship is predicated on being "subject to the jurisdiction", but the equal protection of the laws is predicated on being "within the jurisdiction"
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The text of the Amendment says that people within the United States enjoy the equal protection of the laws--and that includes citizens and non-citizens alike.
"within" is a preposition indicating enclosure or containment.
These are not synonymous and we should not use them synonymously.
Accordingly, we have to impute different meanings and intentions to the sentence regarding citizenship and the sentence regarding equal protection of the laws. By so doing, we are immediately confronted with a rejection of birthright citizenship for all.
I wouldn't call what is unfolding now "lawfare". Perversely and perhaps ironically, this is how the system is supposed to work.
This is why Frederick Douglass spoke of "three boxes" holding American civil liberties: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
Campaigns, Congress, and courtrooms are the crucibles in which American government policy is to be hashed out by the people.
If the Democrats want to "resist" Donald Trump they can begin by striving to reclaim the Congressional powers that have been ceded to the Executive over the years--or they can let Donald Trump proceed.
If the Republican Establishmentarians want to "resist" Donald Trump they can begin by articulating a governing philosophy to counter Trumpism, and not merely mouth meaningless paeans to the past.
America rejected the status quo when Donald Trump was elected. Those who champion the status quo are swimming against that very powerful stream.
There is a small correction to be made: there are three cases touching on birthright Citizenship rather than two. There is also the 1884 case Elk v Wilkins (112 U.S. 94 (1884)). It also works against the claim of birthright citizenship.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/
Good discussion. As I said in a previous note if the parent(s) are illegal and the parent(s) is expelled from the US they are in charge of the kid whether born here or not. If they take the kid back to their country, fine. If they leave the kid here then the kid goes into foster care or gets adopted.
Once again I say: I am in AWE of your mind, Peter!
It looks as though ‘lawfare’ is going to be ramped up again by the Democrats, and then the Trump administration will be compelled to do counter-lawfare. Fine. Hash it all out in the courts for years, get clarifying Supreme Court rulings, have the Truth get dragged out into the open and our Constitution reaffirmed. It will take years, but you are CORRECT in your reasoning, Peter, and I trust that our system of checks and balances will ultimately get our nation back on track. Thank you, Founding Fathers!
It will degenerate into lawfare. For example, look at this headline from today’s MN Statribune:
https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-ag-joins-21-other-states-in-legal-action-to-block-trump-order-ending-birthright-citizenship/601209002?utm_source=gift
They will push the limits, personalize the attacks, scream that Trump is indeed being Hitler, and so on in a depressingly nauseating tirade of legal abuses and flimsy lawfare meant chiefly to continue the false narrative they’ve been propagating for years.
But you are correct, ultimately the lawfare will be resolved by the actual legal-system processes. I love America!
Ultimately, it will come down to the Supreme Court issuing a ruling on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction."
Interestingly, where I think the "experts"--who, let's be clear, are working backwards from their preferred legal outcome of birthright citizenship for all to assemble their legal logic--miss the mark is in the particular wording of the 14th Amendment.
Citizenship is predicated on being "subject to the jurisdiction", but the equal protection of the laws is predicated on being "within the jurisdiction"
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The text of the Amendment says that people within the United States enjoy the equal protection of the laws--and that includes citizens and non-citizens alike.
"within" is a preposition indicating enclosure or containment.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/within
"subject" however, is an adjective and indicates owing obedience or allegiance.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subject
These are not synonymous and we should not use them synonymously.
Accordingly, we have to impute different meanings and intentions to the sentence regarding citizenship and the sentence regarding equal protection of the laws. By so doing, we are immediately confronted with a rejection of birthright citizenship for all.
I so thoroughly wish you could be on the Supreme Court, Peter. Your clarity of reasoning is astoundingly perfect! I bow to your beautiful mind.
I wouldn't call what is unfolding now "lawfare". Perversely and perhaps ironically, this is how the system is supposed to work.
This is why Frederick Douglass spoke of "three boxes" holding American civil liberties: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
Campaigns, Congress, and courtrooms are the crucibles in which American government policy is to be hashed out by the people.
If the Democrats want to "resist" Donald Trump they can begin by striving to reclaim the Congressional powers that have been ceded to the Executive over the years--or they can let Donald Trump proceed.
If the Republican Establishmentarians want to "resist" Donald Trump they can begin by articulating a governing philosophy to counter Trumpism, and not merely mouth meaningless paeans to the past.
America rejected the status quo when Donald Trump was elected. Those who champion the status quo are swimming against that very powerful stream.