"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." NY Governor Charles Evans Hughes, 1907.
No English sentence is without ambiguity in its meaning. If a controversy over meaning arises on a matter as important as law, we cannot function as a nation on the basis of, "Aw, everyone knows what they meant...".
Whether the courts are currently too flexible is a matter of opinion, and unless you get nominated personally to the SCOTUS, an inconsequential one.
> The wording of the constitution indicates that this is only true if your parents were citizens.
The Constitution doesn't define it at all, first off. The Fourteenth Amendment does. All the original Constitution says is that a "natural-born Citizen" is a requirement for President; and that per Article I, Section 8 congress has the power to define the mechanics of citizenship.
The Fourteenth by contrast says plain text:
> 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.
Amendments are amendments to the Constitution. They have the force of law.
The person I was responding to was discussing the "wording of the constitution" so the location of the wording absolutely matters. In this case the "wording of the [original] constitution" is ambiguous, but the wording of the 14th is clear. Thus my reply.
For reference, amendments are part of the constitution. This is specified in TITLE 1 CHAPTER 2 Sec. 106b. Of the US Code[1] which reads
> Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.
Amendments have the same force as the Constitution because they are a part of the constitution. They are not simply laws. Thank you for allowing me to clarify.
You either misread or were trying to mischaracterize something with your first reply. When the original comment was further clarified for you, instead of acknowledging your misread, you've decided to double down with this artificial "clarification" of essentially nothing. It isn't a good look.
Right, when you said, "The Constitution doesn't define it at all, first off. The Fourteenth Amendment does," is wrong. The Constitution does define it, in the 14th amendment.
Thank you again for allowing me to clarify so that you can correct your understanding of the constitution.
Well, the constitution didn't make any statements about who was a citizen, just the 14th ammendment has this:
> 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.
Of course, being part of the Constitution, few of the terms are defined. But, as I read it, if you're born here outside of diplomatic immunity, you're a citizen. And I'd need a well referenced argument to understand why 'subject to the jurisdiction therof' means something other than how I interpret it.
That is a total lie, the 14th amendment is absolutely clear and it was passed after the Civil War with the explicit point of granting citizenship to black slaves who, you'll notice, did not have citizen parents:
> Section 1. 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.
If illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," it's not possible to arrest them for a crime--that's what the phrase means.
The language excludes diplomats, foreign soldiers on US soil while they're fighting a war with the US, and (given the context of when the amendment was passed) Native Americans who hadn't yet been told that they were subjects of the US.
Yes, under current law, almost every baby born in the United States or its territories automatically becomes a US citizen at birth, regardless of the parents’ immigration status, except for certain children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces in hostile occupation.
Even if you're here without permission, you can be tried in our courts, and are subject to our jurisdiction. I'm willing to be swayed, but it has to be compelling. Diplomatic immunity or maybe recognized tribal member on recognized reservation when they were being disenfranchised are the only times I'm aware of where people are physically within the States and DC and not subject to the jurrisdiction thereof. Perhaps if a child is born in an internation vessel at port, or in a duty free shop or a customs free trade zone. Territories and such get squishy, it's usually not clearly stated when the term United States is meant to include those portions of the country that are not a State; but the 14th ammendment is understood not to apply to territories. Citizenship at birth is granted in some territories (at least Puerto Rico) by federal legislation.
That said, upthread you claimed:
> this is only true if your parents were citizens
And now you claim something about illegal aliens. There's a whole range of circumstances, some of which would have been uncontemplatable at the time of the 14th ammendment. If you are born in the US. You claim citizenship only if parentS are citizens. But if only one parent is a citizen, or both parents are permanent residents, or the parents are authorized visitors. For the historically impossible situation, what if the child is carried by a surrogate with authorized presence and the parents are non-citizens not present at birth ... that child is a US citizen by birth, and not included in your statement above.
Fantastic point, I assume you’re equally annoyed about how the right to bear arms has been removed from the contextual requirement that the armed be part of a well organized militia?
Something has been ignored by legislators for over a hundred years and just now you have discovered it’s true meaning which happens to perfectly align with your policy preferences.
Please, just be honest and say you want to enact a policy and use the US Supreme Court to do it, rather than gaslighting us into believing that words don’t mean what they do.
"No True Scotsman" is not accurate here. This would actually be an appeal to authority.
But the fact that it is one doesn't mean it has no merit. My implication is that the person I am responding to is ignorant of the state of the law, not that they must be wrong because others say they are.
There was no reply button. No it's definitely a True Scotsman. When you cherry pick what authority to quote, and therefore imply it's the only true position to have, it's a true Scotsman. Your next line affirms this.
"My implication is that the person I am responding to is ignorant of the state of the law, "
And now you've moved onto the Courtier's reply.
