nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
dphantom
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2005
- 4,763
- 327
- 126
Instead of cherry picking, let's take the whole thing.
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[7] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan?the author of the Citizenship Clause?described the clause as excluding not only Indians but ?persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.?
He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[8] Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[8] and that the United States possessed a ?full and complete jurisdiction? over the person described in the amendment.[4][9][8]
Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[10] supported the amendment, believing citizenship ought to be extended to children of foreigners.
As you can see though did not say, the author of the amendment was supported by several other Senators. As a judge, if a case came before me I would side with the intent of the original author of the amendment.
And no, there are no alarm bells going off. I am perfectly comfortable with the Constitution and its amendments as originally written and intended by the authors.
I'd be interested in how many countries don't have citizenship documentation?
Or are you just a self-hating American?
I thought a self hating American is an American who conveniently forgets that the land he or she lives on was bought with small pox blankets and that the his citizenship papers are all the result of broken treaties and exterminations while at the same time being contemptuous of the real Americans coming home. Can't say we didn't teach them how to say fuck you.
Regardless of whatever the intent was of the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment, ultimately, the actual text should govern, and the actual text clearly indicates people born here are citizens. As for the arguing over the 'jurisdiction' clause, the U.S. Gov't retains physical jurisdiction over anyone within its boundaries (with very limited exceptions, such as diplomats), so that's a red herring, IMHO.
There are laws that fit your post, but you are wrong to imply that's the whole issue.
There need to be a lot of detailed, complicated laws for our complicated society.
Today I watched a judge and two lawyers spend an hour debating a couple trivial points about jury instructions (e.g., a statue cites several sections, should the irrelevant ones be deleted from the jury instructions? What exact words should be used to refer to the 'protection order' or 'court order' the defendant is alleged to have violated? Can the prosecutor refer to the 'victim' saying in the police report that she saw him with a gun, when no one else did and that's prejudicial, unrelated to the charges in the trial?
They were looking at the detailed words in the laws for indications how to decide these matters.
The laws being 'simpler' would have left them without a lot of answers.
When you get into the major laws of the land in which millions are at stake and paid to lawyers, 'simple' is often not best. That leaves open big holes for those well-paid attorneys.
The 14th will never be repealed as: A) Dems are pwned by Illegal's special interest groups, B) Repubs are pwned by businesses who want to keep the cheap labor around.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter