"Well, yes, but that's just the silly constitution; who needs that silly old thing anyway? It would be haaaAAAAaaaard to do that stuff, and we don't want to, so nyah nyah nyah!"
The right-wingnuts who try to add meaning to this clearly stated amendment in order to deny citizenship rights
are the same ones who ignore clearly stated text in 2A in order to claim imaginary gun rights.
I was reminded this morning of the stark clarity and concision of these words. They cover 3 or 4 elemental features of the relationship between person and state with remarkable brevity. Who is a citizen? Who has access to the law? No state may violate the special rights of citizens of the USA.
Actually... the definition of a citizen is broader. Naturalized immigrants of course but also those born overseas to citizen parents. I believe they are automatically naturalized under statute (Art 1 Sec 8 gives Congress that authority).
Re: birthright citizenship it's clear that it's meant to cover people born to non-citizens in the United States, as the clause is itself the definition of "citizen"! If they wanted to define "citizen" as something else, they would have. They chose birthplace, not who the parents were.
Trump, the Heritage Foundation, MAGA etc. think, in EVERY other circumstance, that undocumented immigrants ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, adults and kids alike. It's evidence of weakness that they're attacking that clause as their too-clever-by-half, casuistic legal argument.
And that is why they want to muddy and bloody it if they can eliminate it. The 14A is what makes the Bill of Rights applicable and enforceable at not only the federal but the state level. Due Process and Equal Protection are the two pillars of law.
"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."
Pretty clearly -- regardless of citizenship status.
Okay, but we still haven't settled the question of whether the president is obliged to uphold the Constitution. He's got his best legal minds working on it now.
I like the careful distinction, where “citizens” have their extra privileges protected by due process while all “persons“ still have their three basic rights protected by due process.
These guys definitely knew precisely what they were doing. That’s some real fucking clear Original Intent!
The Fifth Amendment is pretty great, too:
No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .
Counterpoint: the Second Amendment starts with the words, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” — and Scalia read them right the fuck out of the Constitution
I work in construction. While working I hear some really ugly things. Things like, "I'm glad he (Trump) wants to deport every anchor baby 'those people' try to have over here."
I don't know who tried to justify that argument on the job. But, I'm always try to counter their BS with real evidence.
It's very explicit. If these excessive right wing radical lunatics don't like it, they have enough $ to go forth & form their own nation, w their own constitution. I think they have that in the wishing & hoping stage?
Anyhow, they need to either get onboard with this or get out.
If they wanted to say citizen, they would of, like they do plenty of other times. Its such a dumb thing to argue, as if any sane country would say that anyone who isnt a citizen has no rights, it would be the end of any international trade or tourism.
When SCOTUS decides that children of non-US citizens born here aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and thus aren't citizens, will the circle look squarish to you?
Comments
Plain and in black and white.
Don't mix the first part with the entire text!
They don’t see them as persons so feel they can do as they want.
are the same ones who ignore clearly stated text in 2A in order to claim imaginary gun rights.
malignant narcissism rules, HE is the rule maker.
Pretty clearly -- regardless of citizenship status.
Isn’t it denying property without due process?
Now where is the Law Enforcement?
Holding On
“But he went and joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and went to Spain
To fight against Franco and the fascists”
GOP has NOTHING in common w/Abraham Lincoln - now they are the FASCISTS!
https://youtu.be/VcCr1YIV3Mc?...
Fight for Democracy!!!
May the Fourth be with you.
Sec. 3
No person shall... having previously taken an oath an engaged in insurrection against it...
But, inconveniences existed in enforcement of such simple words prevented anyone from stopping him. And here we are.
These guys definitely knew precisely what they were doing. That’s some real fucking clear Original Intent!
No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .
Millions of our neighbors are relying on that part right here, right now.
I don't know who tried to justify that argument on the job. But, I'm always try to counter their BS with real evidence.
Anyhow, they need to either get onboard with this or get out.
Words don't mean what they mean any longer. I learned that from the new SCOTUS.
Had this argument like 9 years ago with a republican uncle.
The citizen/non citizen thing really gets abused on the right.
If SCOTUS says a circle is square, it doesn't change the nature of a circle. SCOTUS has just signaled their corruption and need to be fixed.
The right-wing movement to granting SCOTUS plenary powers via 'reinterpretation' and invention needs to be stopped.