- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,825
- Reaction score
- 7,183
- Location
- Out West
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
it would be unconstitutional, so there's that.
Not necessarily. There was a case that didn't address the issues that we face today.
it would be unconstitutional, so there's that.
According to many on the left, anything that negatively effects minorities is racist. I hate it when I find out that when I have hired a minority that every decision that goes against them is deemed racist.
For now, that is the correct interpretation.
All the Federal Government needs now is legislation that requires the individual to purchase a product or service where it can be construed as a tax for not doing so, and it passes by the same idea that Justice Roberts basically made up to ensure ACA stood. On paper, all government penalties handed out to individuals are now equal to a tax. The power to tax then just became the most powerful tool the government has in coercion over the public to do something or buy something at their political whim.
Just wait until this thinking is applied to energy, or education, or transportation, or what you consume.
No. Why would race have anything to do with it? Ending birthright citizenship would bring the US in line with almost every other country on Earth.
Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?
Why, or why not?
Or, would it be a simple and neutral managing of our society?
Please note that this thread is not about whether a Constitutional amendment or simple legislation would be required. There are other threads for that aspect.
I support ending birthright citizenship as a practical matter, but your point here is more fair than the racist angle, IMO.I am not sure about racist - but it would be a betrayal of our history and one component that made this nation the greatest in the world.
No. It's not. The question is would ending it be constitutional. I think it would be but there are a lot of people that disagree.
Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?
Why, or why not?
Or, would it be a simple and neutral managing of our society?
Please note that this thread is not about whether a Constitutional amendment or simple legislation would be required. There are other threads for that aspect.
Doesn't say birthright citizenship for those who aren't subject to our jurisdiction, such as those who are here illegaly.
Besides, that was written by old white men from the 19th Century, and isn't relevant to today's problems. The Sense Of The Times Is That This Is Important, Now. Just as the 10th Amendment no longer poses a burden, neither does the 14th.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Living Document Theory means you get to do whatever you want
Also, I think General Welfare requires that we ban unions.
Hey, did you know that a progressive tax code is a violation of the equal treatment inherent in the 14th Amendment? We've got to strike that down.
Why did it not mean if you are an adult female then you can vote?
Some things were just not assumed by our nine robed umpires and actually needed to be written - is my best guess.
If you noticed I wasn't arguing the text of the amendment, I was reciting it's original intent and reason for existing in the first place.
Not necessarily. There was a case that didn't address the issues that we face today.
says if you're born here, you're a citizen. don't like it? amend.
What hidebound anti government pro-Somalia conservatives like you fail to understand is that the Constitution was not intended to limit government action, but to encourage us to do what is necessary. General Welfare requires that we strip birthright citizenship. Suggesting that your weird, original-intent view that demands we be governed as though this were the nineteenth century is ridiculous.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Why, if we did that, think of all the government programs we would have to get rid of. No - the Constitution is a living document, subject to the sense of the times and our evolution as a people. We have shifted and evolved on this, and so the Constitution (which, after all, is supposed to be about representative government), follows.
Don't like it? Then lets go back to the pre1930s model where what-the-Constitution-says is more important than what-we-want, and get rid of most of what the Federal Government does.
In the meantime, I've little patience for the same people who claim that original intent doesn't matter when it comes to marriage or social spending suddenly invoking it when it comes to birthright citizenship. You want original intent and actually taking what the Constitution says seriously? No single payer, no free college, no department of education, no medicare, no medicaid... No all the things YOU want, either. You want to bring back original intent and actually enforce the Constitution? That's fine. But don't claim it unless you mean it.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
yep, back to the poorhouses, when charity was enough to support old people.
amend it, or deal with it.
I accept your implicit admission of defeat
That, or have a State level solution. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.
I already dealt with it. It says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof - excluding illegal aliens as assuredly as it requires gay marriage.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
read it again. if you're born here, you're a citizen.
what a weaksauce non-argument.
read it again. if you're born here, you're a citizen.
:shrug: that's the way it may have worked in the nineteenth century, but we aren't in the nineteenth century anymore. A Living Constitution is a Living Constitution for everyone.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Not exactly. If you are born to foreign diplomats or enemy combatants you are not a citizen. Congress can pass a law denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants and it would probably be tested in the SCOTUS. Unfortunately such a law would never pass congress or go to a president that opposes birthright citizenship. The only candidate that has come out against it is trump. The rest support it.