I am an interested bystander with no legal background. At the time of the 14th there were millions of immigrants that simply walked into America and had children. These children were counted as citizens, correct? So, is the difference now that we have laws about legal immigration and therefore those immigrants who bypass those laws and simply walk into America are illegal and therefore count as aliens? Those laws did not take place till after the 14th, so the writers of the 14th would not have known about those laws or that idea.
"Those laws did not take place till after the 14th, so the writers of the 14th would not have known about those laws or that idea."
This is not accurate. The Founding Fathers explicitly accorded to the Congress the power to pass uniform laws of naturalization. The plain text of the Constitution itself has always been that the Congress is authorized and obligated to legislate on the matter of who becomes a citizen and when. It was understood from the drafting of the Constitution that there would in time be immigration and naturalization laws, and that those laws would govern the acquisition of citizenship.
Further, the question of who may be considered a "natural born citizen" and thus qualified to become President of the United States is not at all a new question. Challenges were made over whether Chester Alan Arthur was a natural born citizen, as his father emigrated from Ireland but had never become a citizen. The consensus conclusion at the time was that, as his father had resided in the United States and was indisputably legally domiciled in the United States, that Arthur was a natural born citizen and therefore qualified to become President.
The one thing that John Roberts disingenuously ignored in his confabulations about the Fourteenth Amendment is the debate in the Senate over the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction". At the time of the Amendment's passage, the Senate very explicitly understood the phrase to mean something quite a bit different from the meaning Roberts foisted onto it in his ruling.
This, of course, is why Roberts' ruling is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. He completely disregarded everything he was obligated to acknowledge as a jurist when imposing his will upon the Constitution. Supreme Court justices do not get to do that.
Peter, NO ONE can argue better than you, as you are indisputably the King of Reason. I am endlessly impressed.
So now, what is the actual remedy that can be enacted? If Trump issues another EO, will that, in practice, make the ruling void? There has been talk of passing another Constitutional Amendment, but that is - by design - very difficult, and takes years. There has been suggestions of congressional acts, but again, very difficult politically. Can Trump just ignore this ruling, or do you see another path for him?
One problem is the process of appointing a Judge to SCOTUS. Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. All are Politicritters. Politics influences the process of seating a Justice.
Its not a totally independent Judiciary; is there a better process?
I’m still unclear on exactly what this ruling did. Did it abolish even the exceptions carved out in Wong Kim Ark? We need a more detail forensic analysis.
I am an interested bystander with no legal background. At the time of the 14th there were millions of immigrants that simply walked into America and had children. These children were counted as citizens, correct? So, is the difference now that we have laws about legal immigration and therefore those immigrants who bypass those laws and simply walk into America are illegal and therefore count as aliens? Those laws did not take place till after the 14th, so the writers of the 14th would not have known about those laws or that idea.
"Those laws did not take place till after the 14th, so the writers of the 14th would not have known about those laws or that idea."
This is not accurate. The Founding Fathers explicitly accorded to the Congress the power to pass uniform laws of naturalization. The plain text of the Constitution itself has always been that the Congress is authorized and obligated to legislate on the matter of who becomes a citizen and when. It was understood from the drafting of the Constitution that there would in time be immigration and naturalization laws, and that those laws would govern the acquisition of citizenship.
Further, the question of who may be considered a "natural born citizen" and thus qualified to become President of the United States is not at all a new question. Challenges were made over whether Chester Alan Arthur was a natural born citizen, as his father emigrated from Ireland but had never become a citizen. The consensus conclusion at the time was that, as his father had resided in the United States and was indisputably legally domiciled in the United States, that Arthur was a natural born citizen and therefore qualified to become President.
The one thing that John Roberts disingenuously ignored in his confabulations about the Fourteenth Amendment is the debate in the Senate over the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction". At the time of the Amendment's passage, the Senate very explicitly understood the phrase to mean something quite a bit different from the meaning Roberts foisted onto it in his ruling.
This, of course, is why Roberts' ruling is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. He completely disregarded everything he was obligated to acknowledge as a jurist when imposing his will upon the Constitution. Supreme Court justices do not get to do that.
Great post!
Lord, have mercy.....
Peter, NO ONE can argue better than you, as you are indisputably the King of Reason. I am endlessly impressed.
So now, what is the actual remedy that can be enacted? If Trump issues another EO, will that, in practice, make the ruling void? There has been talk of passing another Constitutional Amendment, but that is - by design - very difficult, and takes years. There has been suggestions of congressional acts, but again, very difficult politically. Can Trump just ignore this ruling, or do you see another path for him?
One problem is the process of appointing a Judge to SCOTUS. Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. All are Politicritters. Politics influences the process of seating a Justice.
Its not a totally independent Judiciary; is there a better process?
I’m still unclear on exactly what this ruling did. Did it abolish even the exceptions carved out in Wong Kim Ark? We need a more detail forensic analysis.
Excellent. Now if Trump will issue another EO we will be home free!