The Supremes touch on this in their 1898 classic, Wong Kim Ark
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
https://constitutioncenter.org/educa...g-kim-ark-1898
You don't see the can. You don't see how big it is or what's inside. If non-citizens aren't subject to the laws of this country you have a very big problem you'll need to address very quickly.
The path to end birthright citizenship isn't an EO or the Supremes. It's amending the Constitution.
You have railed against judicial activism. You're actively courting it here.
Why don't you want to put it to the people instead of hope that this batch of Supremes will take care of it until the pendulum swings except for the "I got mine, fuck the next guy" doctrine?
I know why. And that only 1 of you will admit it.
- HDGristle
- 01-24-2025, 04:30 AM
- Green_Mountain
- 01-24-2025, 04:54 AM
Doesn’t matter what you think.
In the 14th the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," has been a point of contention, with debates over whether it applies to children of undocumented immigrants. Some argue this interpretation could be challenged or reinterpreted.
No need to change the constitution. The interpretation is up for debate.
In the 14th the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," has been a point of contention, with debates over whether it applies to children of undocumented immigrants. Some argue this interpretation could be challenged or reinterpreted.
No need to change the constitution. The interpretation is up for debate.
- HDGristle
- 01-24-2025, 05:05 AM
It's not about what I think. It's about what we know. Wasn't up for contention in 1898
You're arguing like a liberal. If the interpretation is all that matters... buckle up
You're arguing like a liberal. If the interpretation is all that matters... buckle up