It should not be tricky. The role of the supreme court is to enforce and interpret the constitution and federal law. What the constitution says in this case is unambiguous. It would very reductive to re-inturpret the 14th amendment after 150 years to mean something other than what it says.
> It would very reductive to re-inturpret the 14th amendment after 150 years to mean something other than what it says.
They did it with the Second Amendment in DC v. Heller. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court decides it means, nothing else, nothing more, nothing less.
You may not like it but OP is absolutely right. Whatever the supreme court rules stands. That’s exactly how the current system works unless laws are passed or the constitution is amended. Your response is childish and you should be embarrassed.
I don't think they're disagreeing with me, just pointing out that the meaning of the Constitution is subject to a majority vote, which only further undermines the premise that any such thing as an unambiguous (much less "objective") interpretation exists because not even the entire Court always agrees with itself.
Not disagreeing at all, just pointing out how extreme they would have to be to actually undo the 14th Amendment. Modern laws are highly complex and often genuinely challenging to read and understand. The Constitution is very readable even for lay people. Re-inturpreting it to revoke rights requires a willfull misunderstanding by justices.
It would be extreme, but that doesn't make it unlikely. Roe v. Wade was settled law for nearly 50 years, then it was simply nullified.
And the thing is, the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution based on what lay people would think, but based on what a simple majority of them imagine the ghosts of the Founding Fathers would think if they were summoned by necromancy to adjudicate modern matters on first principles. That's why the canonical interpretation of "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with any modern interpretation of "regulation" that any lay person would understand.
First, _jus soli_ is relatively rare in the world at large.
Second, the Supreme Court has never ruled on birthright citizenship; the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has not been tested.
Regardless of your political views, this is an extremely important area of US law, and for it to be undefined isn't fair to anyone.
Even if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has never made it to the Supreme Court, it's not an ambiguous phrase subject to multiple interpretations. The idea that some class of immigrants are outside the jurisdiction of the US even when they are physically in the country is not supportable.
Precisely. The phrase is exclusively intended to handle both foreign and US diplomats.
Diplomatically, embassies count as the soil of the country they represent and thus subject to the jurisdiction of said country. As a result, a child born to a foreign diplomat present in the US would not be granted citizenship. Similarly, a US ambassador (to Germany, for example) is treated as still subject to US jurisdiction, and by extension, any children of theirs would automatically become US citizens.
A person who entered the US illegally is still subject to US jurisdiction (or else they couldn't be violating US immigration law), so any children they have are citizens. The proper ways to address that are to a) prevent them from entering illegally in the first place, b) fix immigration law so they don't have to enter illegally, and/or c) add a constitutional amendment modifying the 14th amendment to explicitly deny citizenship to children born to parents who are here illegally.
> The phrase is exclusively intended to handle both foreign and US diplomats.
I'd argue that the phrase was originally intended to make it absolutely clear that formerly enslaved people were citizens, and so were their children.
Obviously it's been used for other purposes since then, and the authors and those who ratified it considered the repercussions through their own biases, but I believe that was almost exclusively the primary intent.
It's striking me at the moment how much the political climate today mirrors that of the time the 14th was ratified. From a historical perspective, the concern is over the expansion of the electorate - from the abolition of slavery then, and from uncontrolled immigration today.
The difference I see is that the abolition of slavery was a positive decision made by the US government; today's concerns around illegal immigration were caused by our failure to enforce our own laws. Based on my understanding of the motivations of our Justices today, that could be a key difference.
I use the word "cheating" like I use the word "hacking." The connotation can be either good or bad or contextually. You are defeating a system. The intent of the cheater/hacker is where we get into moral judgements. (This is a great sub-thread.)
Waterfox, I’ve spent a good amount of time on scouring through the code looking at what to remove and the next release I’ve found some last remaining remnants to disable
After about 44 million deaths, only about half a million people die every year of AIDS. There is still no cure. I'm not sure what sensible stopping point you imagine but that doesnt seem to be it.
I trully hate how absurdly over-hyped this LLM concept of AI is. However, it can do some cool things. Normally that's the path to PMF. The real problem is the revenue. There is no extant revenue model whatsoever. But there are industries that are described as "a business of pennies" Ex. telephony. Someone may yet eek out a win. But the hype-to-reality conversion will come first.
I read this whoel article and I still do not understand what criteria make a programming language serious. Obviously it's very different from Python but I don't understand "serious" or "non-serious" as a way to describe this.
reply