BREAKING SCOTUS upholds birthright citizenship!!

[92tide]

Since this is the last speech that I will give as President, I think it's fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said: ``You can go t

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation provides education, scholarships, exhibits, events, and media related to the lives of Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

www.reaganfoundation.org

“Since this is the last speech that I will give as President, I think it's fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said: ``You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.”​

 

[arthurdawg]

I think a good compromise would be allowing the person born here to immigrant parents to apply for citizenship when they turn 18 via a streamlined system. It would allow us to determine whether or not the person was really 'American' or not.

Of course, that would be ripe for abuse (like most any system, really) - but would set a different standard than an immigrant while not allowing full citizenship just because.

This would be a great way to approach an amendment. Do away with the fly by night anchor babies, but allow those who come here and work and want to be a part of the US community a good pathway for it.

I mean... this issue is not very important personally, but I do think the anchor baby issue is something that should be addressed. But you have to do it properly per the Consitution.

 

[dtgreg]

I think a good compromise would be allowing the person born here to immigrant parents to apply for citizenship when they turn 18 via a streamlined system. It would allow us to determine whether or not the person was really 'American' or not.

Of course, that would be ripe for abuse (like most any system, really) - but would set a different standard than an immigrant while not allowing full citizenship just because.

There you go with good-faith, logical compromises. You've got to "Trust the Plan". And that plan is to deport 100,000,000 persons and create a "White", "Christian" ethno-state. You're trying to apply sanity and logic to insanity.

 

[Tidewater]

I cannot say I am surprised.
Jacob Thompson, the drafter of the XIV Amendment said of birthright citizenship, "this will not , of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

If the qualifier "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is irrelevant, meaningless, or unnecessary, why include it. Why not just write "all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the State where they reside?" why insert the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"

I believe this has to do with domicile, "a statement or indication of an attachment to the new country and an intention to stay there if allowed, in political terms, a transfer of allegiance." That is not what the amendment says, but I believe "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something like that. Babies born in naturalized citizens in the United States. I believe clearly are citizens. Babies born to people holding green cards I believe are citizens of the United States. But for the children of illegals, I'm not so sure because they have not declared an intention to remain or a transfer of allegiance. It is a strange way to show allegiance to the new country by breaking the law of the country.

One thing that troubles me is that I do not see what the limiting principle is. In an extreme example to illustrate the point, if a pregnant enemy combatant soldier temporarily occupying some portion of US territory during a war gave birth, would the child automatically be a US citizen? If not, what principle in the ruling would prevent that?

All that is water under the bridge now. The court has ruled.
I cannot help the feeling that in a few centuries historians will look back at the United States and come to the conclusion that Americans are some of the stupidest people ever to walk the planet.

 

[bamacpa]

Isn't the red carded/not red carded soccer player a birthright only citizen of the USA ? And Trump claims to have intervened on his behalf? Has Trump gone libral Pawwwl?

 

[92tide]

Isn't the red carded/not red carded soccer player a birthright only citizen of the USA ? And Trump claims to have intervened on his behalf? Has Trump gone libral Pawwwl?

yes, he is

 

[Tidewater]

Warrant:
Judges are not superior human beings who have the power to issue their decisions because they are wiser than everyone else. A judge's sole warrant for issuing constitutional rulings at all is the text of the Constitution (and amendments to it) ratified by the people.

Meaning:
James Madison said, “The legitimate meaning of the Instrument (i.e. the Constitution) must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution (i.e. the Philadelphia Convention), but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses.” In the case of a constitutional amendment, the debates of the drafters and the state legislatures that ratified.
Madison further presented rules for interpreting the Constitution (James Madison’s Speech on the Bank Bill 2 February 1791):
As preliminaries to a right interpretation, he laid down the following rules:

• An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the government cannot be just.
• Where a meaning is clear, the consequences, whatever they may be, are to be admitted—where doubtful, it is fairly triable by its consequences.
• In controverted cases, the meaning of the parties to the instrument, if to be collected by reasonable evidence, is a proper guide.
• Cotemporary and concurrent expositions are reasonable evidence of the meaning of the parties.

Precedents:
I think what we have in a situation like this is an accretion of precedents over the decades which runs the risk drift over time. If judicial decision Z is based on judicial precedent Y, which, in turn is based on precedent X, which is based on precedent W, all of which is based on constitutional provision A, it is possible, indeed likely, that judicial decision Z may bear a little resemblance to constitutional provision A. If every judge throughout the process looked to the constitution only, then we are much more likely to have consistent judicial decisions over time. Stare decisis works best when all parties are looking at the same North Star.

Ambiguity:
There may be enough of a record in the debates on the XIV Amendment to support whatever conclusion an individual brings to the question. Obviously, by the text of the amendment, some people born in the US (“Indians not taxed”) were not intended to get birthright citizenship under the XIV Amendment. It seems children born to parents domiciled in the US (naturalized, green card holders, etc.) should automatically get US citizenship. The status of the children of illegal aliens was novel enough as to not fit neatly into either category. In 1866, it took weeks to sail to America. Today it is a trip of hours.

The Opinion, Majority/Minority:
I have now read the opinion. There is evidence from the drafters and advocates of the XIV that ”aliens” would not be included in citizenship. Senator Jacob Howard said of the birthright citizenship, “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States, who are foreigners, aliens, who belonged to the families of ambassadors, or for administers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” (Congressional Globe May 30, 1866, p. 2890) Senator Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Citizenship Clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 wrote to President Johnson, “all persons' born of parents domiciled except untaxed Indians, to be citizens of the United States.” The minority opinion conflates the reasoning behind the Civil Rights Act of 1866 with that of the XIV Amendment. This is a weakness in the minority opinion’s argument. The CRA is not the same as the Amendment. But Sen. Howard said that “citizenship has been has been so fully discussed in this body as to not need any further elucidation, in my opinion." He was referring to the debates on the Civil Rights Act. This would seem to link the one with the other.

The evidence marshaled in the majority opinion relied heavily on Blackstone (British pre-Rev War), Kent (1830s), but not so much on the debates of the XIV amendment. The majority’s evidence would apply to children born to parents domiciled in the US (i.e. manifested an intention to stay) as well as the majority’s assertion of territoriality (born in US territory = US citizen). The majority do not present evidence that would support the assertion that if a mother who deliver her baby in US territory, then leaves to return to her home country, raises the child in that home country, speaking her native language, studying in her home country, and he registers for the draft in the home country should nevertheless be awarded US citizenship. There is simply no evidence to support that, yet that is now US policy. I have seen evidence of children born in the US domiciled parents = US citizen, but I have not seen unambiguous evidence from the period when the drafting of the XIV Amendment to support the territoriality-only interpretation.

This is a troubling opinion and I am not sure the justices got it right. They have, however, ruled, so we are stuck with it.

 

[JDCrimson]

Theoretically, all judges looking back at the Constitution first when rendering decisions would result in a better quality stare decisis. But that would require all the judges over the span of our history reading the Constitution the same way. We would inevitably end back where we are because that isn't possible.

Heck, we cant even all agree what The Bible says and most of us reading it have it as the only source document, meaning we dont have the supplements, concordance, etc. expand our interpretation of it.

I think it would be appropriate and reasonable to require domicile to be established before birthright citizenship to the immigrant's child. And if you are living underground you really haven't established domicile.

Ultimately, I think to improve the functionality of SCOTUS would be term limit the judges to 18 years and overturning of precedent require a supermajority of judges, 6-3, 7-2 opinions.

 

[dtgreg]

Warrant:
Judges are not superior human beings who have the power to issue their decisions because they are wiser than everyone else. A judge's sole warrant for issuing constitutional rulings at all is the text of the Constitution (and amendments to it) ratified by the people.

Meaning:
James Madison said, “The legitimate meaning of the Instrument (i.e. the Constitution) must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution (i.e. the Philadelphia Convention), but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses.” In the case of a constitutional amendment, the debates of the drafters and the state legislatures that ratified.
Madison further presented rules for interoreting the Constitution:
As preliminaries to a right interpretation, he laid down the following rules:

• An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the government cannot be just.

Man, wait 'til Tidewater hears about the Unitary Executive theory...

 

[CrimsonNagus]

Warrant:
Judges are not superior human beings who have the power to issue their decisions because they are wiser than everyone else. A judge's sole warrant for issuing constitutional rulings at all is the text of the Constitution (and amendments to it) ratified by the people.

Meaning:
James Madison said, “The legitimate meaning of the Instrument (i.e. the Constitution) must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution (i.e. the Philadelphia Convention), but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses.” In the case of a constitutional amendment, the debates of the drafters and the state legislatures that ratified.
Madison further presented rules for interoreting the Constitution:
As preliminaries to a right interpretation, he laid down the following rules:

• An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the government cannot be just.
• Where a meaning is clear, the consequences, whatever they may be, are to be admitted—where doubtful, it is fairly triable by its consequences.
• In controverted cases, the meaning of the parties to the instrument, if to be collected by reasonable evidence, is a proper guide.
• Cotemporary and concurrent expositions are reasonable evidence of the meaning of the parties.

Precedents:
I think what we have in a situation like this is an accretion of precedents over the decades which runs the risk drift over time. If judicial decision Z is based on judicial precedent Y, which, in turn is based on precedent X, which is based on precedent W, all of which is based on constitutional provision A, it is possible, indeed likely, that judicial decision Z may bear a little resemblance to constitutional provision A. If every judge throughout the process looked to the constitution only, then we are much more likely to have consistent judicial decisions over time. Stare decisis works best when all parties are looking at the same North Star.

Ambiguity:
There may be enough of a record in the debates on the XIV Amendment to support whatever conclusion an individual brings to the question. Obviously, by the text of the amendment, some people born in the US (“Indians not taxed”) were not intended to get birthright citizenship under the XIV Amendment. It seems children born to parents domiciled in the US (naturalized, green card holders, etc.) should automatically get US citizenship. The status of the children of illegal aliens was novel enough as to not fit neatly into either category. In 1866, it took weeks to sail to America. Today it is a trip of hours.

The Opinion, Majority/Minority:
I have now read the opinion. There is evidence from the drafters and advocates of the XIV that ”aliens” would not be included in citizenship. Senator Jacob Howard said of the birthright citizenship, “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States, who are foreigners, aliens, who belonged to the families of ambassadors, or for administers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” (Congressional Globe May 30, 1866, p. 2890) Senator Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Citizenship Clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 wrote to President Johnson, “all persons' born of parents domiciled except untaxed Indians, to be citizens of the United States.” The minority opinion conflates the reasoning behind the Civil Rights Act of 1866 with that of the XIV Amendment. This is a weakness in the minority opinion’s argument. The CRA is not the same as the Amendment. But Sen. Howard said that “citizenship has been has been so fully discussed in this body as to not need any further elucidation, in my opinion." He was referring to the debates on the Civil Rights Act. This would seem to link the one with the other.

The evidence marshaled in the majority opinion relied heavily on Blackstone (British pre-Rev War), Kent (1830s), but not so much on the debates of the XIV amendment. The majority’s evidence would apply to children born to parents domiciled in the US (i.e. manifested an intention to stay) as well as the majority’s assertion of territoriality (born in US territory = US citizen). The majority do not present evidence that would support the assertion that if a mother who deliver her baby in US territory, then leaves to return to her home country, raises the child in that home country, speaking her native language, studying in her home country, and he registers for the draft in the home country should nevertheless be awarded US citizenship. There is simply no evidence to support that, yet that is now US policy. I have seen evidence of children born in the US domiciled parents = US citizen, but I have not seen unambiguous evidence from the period when the drafting of the XIV Amendment to support the territoriality-only interpretation.

This is a troubling opinion and I am not sure the justices got it right. They have, however, ruled, so we are stuck with it.

Boy, this can be said about so many of their recent rulings, especially on presidential immunity. I think that decision, over time, will prove to be one of the worst decisions in the history of the SCOTUS.

 

[Tidewater]

Theoretically, all judges looking back at the Constitution first when rendering decisions would result in a better quality stare decisis. But that would require all the judges over the span of our history reading the Constitution the same way. We would inevitably end back where we are because that isn't possible.

Heck, we cant even all agree what The Bible says and most of us reading it have it as the only source document, meaning we dont have the supplements, concordance, etc. expand our interpretation of it.

I think it would be appropriate and reasonable to require domicile to be established before birthright citizenship to the immigrant's child. And if you are living underground you really haven't established domicile.

Ultimately, I think to improve the functionality of SCOTUS would be term limit the judges to 18 years and overturning of precedent require a supermajority of judges, 6-3, 7-2 opinions.

There is really no check on the judiciary, other than self-restraint. That is a design flaw. I think the Founders did not protect the Republic from this because they believed judges would be high-minded and loyal to their oaths, but that pretense did not even survive the Founding generation. John Marshall issued decisions as if his waking thought each day was, "How can I damage and thwart the Constitution today?" Brilliant man, but brilliant in the service of evil.

 

[Tidewater]

Man, wait 'til Tidewater hears about the Unitary Executive theory...

There was this weird case in the aftermath of the Civil War. Lincoln (Republican) was dead and Johnson (Democrat) became president, but most of Johnson's cabinet ministers had been appointed by Lincoln.
Johnson wanted to fire Secretary of War Stanton, so Stanton barricaded himself in his own office and ordered military officer to obey his commands, not the President's commands. Republicans in Congress said that, since they had confirmed Stanton, the President could not remove him without Congressional approval.

 

[Tidewater]

Man, wait 'til Tidewater hears about the Unitary Executive theory...

Having read the most important book in American history, Elliot's Debates, I would say that most of the Founders had read Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws and accepted his separation of powers between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. I did not read much from the Founders one way or the other about unified executive theory. An all-powerful executive was largely the invention of the 20th century, so maybe they were not worried about the executive power.

Mrs. Tidewater wanted to watch the HBO series John Adams for the 250th anniversary. In the first cabinet meeting of the Washington Administration (President, SecState, SecTreas, and Attorney General?), Washington asks VP John Adams to leave the room. I do not know if this really happened (it could have, I just do not know), but if it did, the filmmakers did not say whether this was a personality conflict between Washington and Adams or an application of the Montesquieuian separation of powers. The VP was the President of the Senate so maybe Washington was just applying accepted separation of powers wisdom to the cabinet meeting.

 

[dtgreg]

Having read the most important book in American history, Elliot's Debates, I would say that most of the Founders had read Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws and accepted his separation of powers between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. I did not read much from the Founders one way or the other about unified executive theory. An all-powerful executive was largely the invention of the 20th century, so maybe they were not worried about the executive power.

Mrs. Tidewater wanted to watch the HBO series John Adams for the 250th anniversary. In the first cabinet meeting of the Washington Administration (President, SecState, SecTreas, and Attorney General?), Washington asks VP John Adams to leave the room. I do not know if this really happened (it could have, I just do not know), but if it did, the filmmakers did not say whether this was a personality conflict between Washington and Adams or an application of the Montesquieuian separation of powers. The VP was the President of the Senate so maybe Washington was just applying accepted separation of powers wisdom to the cabinet meeting.

I appreciate the polite and educated response. From everything I have read, the Presidency was always intended to be a tool of Congress. We had, with notable exceptions, very weak Presidents for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Then the Bomb. After WW2, we realized that we didn't have time to wait to convene Congress to deliberate and possibly declare war if we were "Pearl-Harbored" again, but this time, with nukes. Still, we seem to want to cling to "Original Intent" in the nuclear age. If we use just a mote of common sense (no pun intended) we will realize that the Founders did not intend to run from King George to King Washington or Burr. I mean, why all the fuss over "Constitution" and "Republic", if so?

It seems to me the ones clamoring for "Unitary Executive" have given up on winning the People with arguments and wish to rule by force. The Slavers were defeated in 1865 but they have never renounced the immoral nature of their system. In fact, they would have to admit that their Fathers, Grandfathers, etc., were evil men killing and torturing for money. This they can never do. Their entire religion is Slavery. The Cornerstone Speech is their Faith declared.

I believe Justice Powell's manifesto is the blueprint for our overlords to retake America. It is the Billionaire Class who rule now, as the equivalent Planter Class ruled the South and sometimes the entire Country 160 years ago. We the People are but cattle to them.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Since this is the last speech that I will give as President, I think it's fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said: ``You can go t

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation provides education, scholarships, exhibits, events, and media related to the lives of Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

www.reaganfoundation.org

“Since this is the last speech that I will give as President, I think it's fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said: ``You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.”​

A young man who works at the grocery store we frequent just got his citizenship two weeks ago . He's in his mid to late 20's and couldn't have happened to a better person. He was smiling from ear to ear and very proud to be an American citizen.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I believe the court avoided the children of domiciliaries intentionally, as a matter or practicality. "Residence" is where your butt sits. "Domicile" is strictly a matter of intention. You can reside in one country for 20 years, always intending to return to the country of your origin and never lose your domicile in that country. However, "intention" can be inferred from actions and therein lies the rub. The cases involving what constitutes "intention" is already massive and confusing (and in conflict between states). If they had ruled children of aliens ineligible, then get ready for a massive court load lockdown. I think they decided to let well enough alone. I note that Trump is applying for a rehearing. That last happened in 1965...

 

[Tidewater]

I believe the court avoided the children of domiciliaries intentionally, as a matter or practicality. "Residence" is where your butt sits. "Domicile" is strictly a matter of intention. You can reside in one country for 20 years, always intending to return to the country of your origin and never lose your domicile in that country. However, "intention" can be inferred from actions and therein lies the rub. The cases involving what constitutes "intention" is already massive and confusing (and in conflict between states). If they had ruled children of aliens ineligible, then get ready for a massive court load lockdown. I think they decided to let well enough alone. I note that Trump is applying for a rehearing. That last happened in 1965...

I would not hold my breath if I were him.
As for intentions to remain, applying for a work/study visa and applying for permanent legal residency are probably reasonable indicators of intent.
You are probably right about leaving well enough alone. A pragmatic solution.

 

[Tidewater]

I appreciate the polite and educated response. From everything I have read, the Presidency was always intended to be a tool of Congress. We had, with notable exceptions, very weak Presidents for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Then the Bomb. After WW2, we realized that we didn't have time to wait to convene Congress to deliberate and possibly declare war if we were "Pearl-Harbored" again, but this time, with nukes. Still, we seem to want to cling to "Original Intent" in the nuclear age. If we use just a mote of common sense (no pun intended) we will realize that the Founders did not intend to run from King George to King Washington or Burr. I mean, why all the fuss over "Constitution" and "Republic", if so?

It seems to me the ones clamoring for "Unitary Executive" have given up on winning the People with arguments and wish to rule by force. The Slavers were defeated in 1865 but they have never renounced the immoral nature of their system. In fact, they would have to admit that their Fathers, Grandfathers, etc., were evil men killing and torturing for money. This they can never do. Their entire religion is Slavery. The Cornerstone Speech is their Faith declared.

I believe Justice Powell's manifesto is the blueprint for our overlords to retake America. It is the Billionaire Class who rule now, as the equivalent Planter Class ruled the South and sometimes the entire Country 160 years ago. We the People are but cattle to them.

Agreed on the first two paragraphs. Legislatures legislate. Executives execute.
Whigs agreed that a Whig president would never veto legislation, but would execute whatever the legislature passed.

I would differ on the timing of the imperial presidency:

Teddy Roosevelt 1902: “To Hell with the Constitution when the people want coal.” TR during the Anthracite Strike. Bradley C. S. Watson (ed.), Progressive Challenges to the American Constitution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), p. 196.

Woodrow Wilson: “His [the president's] is the only national voice in affairs. Let him once win the admiration and confidence of the country, and no other single force can withstand him, no combination of forces will easily overpower him. His position takes the imagination of the country. He is the representative of no constituency, but of the whole people. When he speaks in his true character, he speaks for no special interest. If he rightly interpret the national thought and boldly insist upon it, he is irresistible; and the country never feels the zest of action so much as when its President is of such insight and calibre. Its instinct is for unified action, and it craves a single leader. It is for this reason that it will often prefer to choose a man rather than a party. A President whom it trusts can not only lead it, but form it to his own views.” Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1908) p. 68.

The advent of nuclear weapons accelerated the development that Progressives started.

 

[dtgreg]

Agreed on the first two paragraphs. Legislatures legislate. Executives execute.
Whigs agreed that a Whig president would never veto legislation, but would execute whatever the legislature passed.

I would differ on the timing of the imperial presidency:

Teddy Roosevelt 1902: “To Hell with the Constitution when the people want coal.” TR during the Anthracite Strike. Bradley C. S. Watson (ed.), Progressive Challenges to the American Constitution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), p. 196.

Woodrow Wilson: “His is the only national voice in affairs. Let him once win the admiration and confidence of the country, and no other single force can withstand him, no combination of forces will easily overpower him. His position takes the imagination of the country. He is the representative of no constituency, but of the whole people. When he speaks in his true character, he speaks for no special interest. If he rightly interpret the national thought and boldly insist upon it, he is irresistible; and the country never feels the zest of action so much as when its President is of such insight and calibre. Its instinct is for unified action, and it craves a single leader. It is for this reason that it will often prefer to choose a man rather than a party. A President whom it trusts can not only lead it, but form it to his own views.” Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1908) p. 68.

The advent of nuclear weapons accelerated the development. that Progressives started.

Don't forget Andy Jackson.

 

[AlexanderFan]

This is exactly it; the elected bramches are using the appointed branch to do the dirty work. I do not agree with the SCOTUS interpretation; this is an issue that should be taken up in Congress and effectively legislated. Something must be done to effectively govern this country, and these grifters are just getting rich off American people.

All of these elected clowns need to be put on a boat in the Atlantic in the middle of a hurricane.