Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Who here has touched a titty in the last 24 hours?
You wouldn't believe me if I told ya! 🤣
This sounds like a robotic approach when no other amendment takes such an approach. No amendment is needed and there's nothing inherently wrong with interpretations, thats literally the courts job. Same as how we choose who the 2a applies to, i.e. not 5 year olds and not felons, there would be nothing illogical about determining that the 14th does not apply to tourism.
The same logic applies, i.e. a society’s evolution warrants review of amendments. Just as the people in 1865 could not have predicted mass immigration, nor could the founders understand weaponry advancements. Undoubtedly the country could have tweaked 2A and made society safer without significantly impeding the rights of gun owners.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Gworm, I think this thread has highlighted the difference between a policy argument and a constitutional argument. It's the equivalent to the difference between arguing from the Constitution and arguing toward a preferred outcome.
There is nothing wrong with believing birthright citizenship is bad policy. If someone wants to amend the Fourteenth Amendment through Article V, that's a perfectly legitimate political position. Where I think you've struggled/are struggling is distinguishing that policy preference from the constitutional argument.
Throughout the thread you've offered a number of justifications:
- The framers couldn't have anticipated illegal immigration
- Birth tourism from China
- Unnamed constitutional scholars
- Mark Levin's opinion
- Roberts and Barrett are wrong because they're "liberal RINOs"
- and finally your interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
None of those actually answers the central question: Why should everyone conclude that the Constitution has been interpreted incorrectly for roughly 150 years?
That's an extraordinarily high bar.
The existence of birth tourism doesn't answer it.
Whether the current policy is wise doesn't answer it.
Whether China might exploit it doesn't answer it.
Whether Mark Levin agrees with you doesn't answer it.
Even the fact that some judges dissent doesn't answer it. Every major constitutional issue has dissents.
I also think you're conflating jurisdiction with citizenship. Foreign nationals are unquestionably subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they're here. We arrest them, prosecute them, deport them, tax them when appropriate, and require them to obey our laws. Being subject to another country's laws doesn't mean they aren't subject to ours. The historical exceptions have generally been people outside ordinary U.S. jurisdiction, such as accredited diplomats, not simply anyone who possesses another citizenship.
So I come back to the same question I asked earlier. You said there are "as many constitutional scholars" on your side as the other. Great. Who are they?
Because so far, you've offered a collection of policy concerns and hypotheticals, but I still haven't seen evidence that the constitutional interpretation followed by the courts for roughly a century and a half was simply wrong all along.
If your argument is "the Fourteenth Amendment should be changed," that's a policy debate. If your argument is "the Fourteenth Amendment has always meant something different than the courts have understood it to mean," that's a constitutional claim, and it requires considerably more than assembling every policy concern that supports your preferred outcome.
I think the flaw in that is the presumption of a static society forever. There's nothing unusual about revising an interpretation, nor about evolving interpretations with the needs of society.
Yes their is. Who decides what the society needs? I'll answer it: it's not the courts, it's Congress. That is exactly what they are for and have been given a mechanism to make and change law and the constitution. I said it before, when courts start gleaning rights and prohibitions out of thin air or even their own interpretation of what the framers wanted, we get bad law like Roe v Wade. which took 50 or 60 years to finally get it right.
If immigration law was actually enforced and there wasn't widespread fraud and gaming of the immigration system, I don't think people would have such a problem with the birthright citizenship.
How do you think a working class person in California struggling to pay for food, gas and housing should feel about people walking in and getting all kinds of free stuff and advantages? How should they feel about a political party that openly and brazenly supports illegal immigrants over the actual people who are from here and work hard and pay taxes? They should just take it?
Pretty much nailed it.
Probably right but this is California. That is exactly what we do, we just take it. California has the largest block of ignorant voters in the country. Most of them have never given what you said a moments thought.
"Foreign nationals are unquestionably subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they're here. We arrest them, prosecute them, deport them, tax them when appropriate, and require them to obey our laws."
This is true. It's equally true that foreign nationals are still subject to the laws of their nation of origin, even when they are in a foreign country.
Go do something in a foreign country that is a crime in the US. See what happens when they find out and you return. You'll be prosecuted here for it, because you're a US citizen, and you broke a US law.
I suspect we're more aligned with what we want in regard to immigration, but this post is confusing with reality. Are you saying that we should abolish the Supreme Court? Because your post makes no room for them to exist. I don't like overturning rvw either, but that's just what it is. Don't like it, don't put those people in there. Don't have control because you're in the minority, then don't be in the minority. Thats just how this place works.
The worst thing way more than any ruling is how everyoe is so selfish and narcissistic that they want to abolish everything that makes them unhappy, but then also somehow keep everything when they make us happy. A huge part of what's wrong with the usa today is that people have completely forgotten the notion of not getting what they want all the time. Stahp. It's okay to get a ruling or interpretation or law that we dislike.
The 13th Amendment, Section 1 refers to places subject to US jurisdiction, which would include territories, possessions, etc...
The 14th amendment refers to persons subject to US jurisdiction.
I don’t think that’s really a rebuttal to what I wrote.
Someone can be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and their home country’s laws at the same time. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
If foreign nationals weren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they’re here, we couldn’t arrest them, prosecute them, deport them, or require them to obey our laws.
The fact that another country may also have jurisdiction doesn’t change that.
That cannot be a serious question. I give up!
Exactly, the word jurisdiction is used in the same context both places.
I agree with this and I’m armed to the gills.🤣
Pit Row
Ok, I have not followed this particular conversation but LL brings up a good point. Those of you that are staunch believers in 2a and yet want the court to "interpret" the 14th amendment your way are asking for big trouble. I'm not sure you get it. You will be hung by your own petard.
I do get it. I’m just agreeing with LL , that when interpretations (whatever that might be) go a certain way it can have serious repercussions. I think 2A and 14A are similar in the sense that what we see now is abuse of what was the intention of what was originally written.
Bro can’t genuinely be this dense
Are folks calling for the 2a to be amended with every gun law? How many times has the ussc made a 2a interpretation and ruling? Hundreds? If only we could figure out how that happened without needing a hundred amendments...
Do you think there has ever been an instance of birthright citizenship granted to the child of 2 non-citizens that was legal and valid?
Folarin Balogun?
I was not necessarily pointing you out. It was just where I decided to jump into the conversation.
Nah, man. Weren’t not just going to move on from the fact that you said 13A and 14A use “jurisdiction” in the same context. It’s staring you in the face. They are not the same context. You made a mistake, won’t admit it, and now you’re asking me to argue something different.
Defend your statement that 13A and 14A use “jurisdiction” in the same sense.
I get it, no worries BotherMan.😎
The reason the 13th amendment didn't outlaw slavery on tribal land is the same reason the 14th amendment didn't grant native tribe members citizenship, jurisdiction both land and personal.
Now answer my question.
To make it easier:
“In both amendments, “jurisdiction” refers to the legal authority of the United States. The difference is what each amendment is regulating, not the basic meaning of the word.”
What the fuck does Indian law have to do with this? None of this is relevant or explains that jurisdiction means the same thing in each amendment.
I don’t need to answer your question. You obviously are hoping I’ll kickstart your diatribe based on an entirely made up methodology for legal analysis. Why don’t you just make a substantive argument instead asking for help.
Post a reply to: If you are born here you are ….