dyecaster

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron I thought I was clear minded on how this should be interpreted having not given it a lot of thought until the last couple years, but you’ve given me good pushback that might change my mind on what the text is saying.

@dyecaster @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron All good. Fwiw I wouldn't mind if we got rid of BRC but I feel that the constitution and the rule of law are important. If we want to change it we'll need an amendment. We don't want the next Democrat president altering the 2nd amendment by executive order. Have a nice day.

A little history on the 14th Amendment and the "birthright citizenship" clause. I'm reminded that a lot of people do not know the process involved in bringing an amendment from concept to to ratification and law, or why that process matters. Jacob Howard (Senate) and John Bingham (House) were the two guys that drafted and presented the proposed amendment to Congress. Once submitted, there is debate. Members of Congress express concerns, propose changes, and so on. These debates are recorded for posterity to look back upon to better understand what the legislation is intended to do. Then, once Congress passes it and presents it to the States, there is the Ratification Process in which each State can debate and present their concerns. This leaves us with a tremendous record of why specific words and phrases were chosen and what the intent was. It informs the voters on exactly what the law means, straight from the framers of it, so that there is no confusion. This is why originalism is preferred to textualism. The law can only mean what it meant when it was adopted. Altering the meaning and intent of the law is altering the law itself and subverts the legislative process. Courts do not have that power. Sadly, that hasn't stopped courts from usurping that power. In the Ratification process, the very questions being argued before SCOTUS today, were addressed unequivocally. When asked if the amendment applies to foreigners, the framers themselves had this to say, explicitly: Howard said: “This amendment… declares that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…” Then he immediately defines the limitation: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers…” That is the understanding of the law as it was ratified. That is what We The People voted to enact. Furthermore, they went even deeper on what "subject to the jurisdiction" explicitly meant: Howard described jurisdiction as: “Full and complete jurisdiction… not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Allegiance. That was the crux of the debate and understanding. For those born here from citizens of another Nation: “They are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in a certain sense, but not in the full and complete sense.” - Howard Full and complete. That's what makes someone subject to the jurisdiction. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” - Senator Lyman Trumbull at the ratification debates They explicitly rejected absolute jus soli (citizenship by soil alone). In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark., the court applied the English Common law standard of jus soli, flagarently against Congress's explicit rejection of it during ratification. The court rejected originalism in favor of textualism. As a result, this Nation ended up with a very different legal structure than the Constitution created. The bottom line is that the 14th Amendment did not establish birthright citizenship. It ensured that due process and the rights and privileges in the States are preserved. If you listen to the oral arguments before the court today, I expect that you'll see this argument put forth. Allegiance, not presence, determines citizenship.

@TheStaad The Passion of the Christ might have been a Catholic film, but the passion of the Christ was a Christian event.

The Passion of the Christ is a Catholic film When it came out, I was a Protestant. I did not fully appreciate what was seeing, although it did impact me As a Catholic, I see it much more clearly: it is a film version of the Stations of the Cross Everything is so much more clear, beautiful and profound when seen with Catholic eyes

@ComeHometoRome Scripture talks about the Roman Catholic Church?

I was lied to my whole life about what the Catholic Church taught and believed. I never got a truthful answer from any Protestant pastor. Once I finally researched it, I was brought to tears at the deepness of beauty, goodness, thoughtfulness, and above all, the eternal pillar of Truth that Scripture tells us the Catholic Church is. Thank you Jesus Christ.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron See my other tweet. I misremembered a word that changed the grammar that wasn’t there. I reread and realized. You are correct.

@dyecaster @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron A list of what? There's only one group of people. The sentence contains a noun, an appositive, a prepositional phrase, and a qualifier just like Howard's sentence. It's grammaticality analogous.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron Nope, I may have misread the text and you might be right. My mistake.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron That’s a different sentence construction. “,who earn an A” is not a noun, it is a parenthetical clause. The one-to-one would be “students, pupils, those who earn an A on the exam will receive a special reward.” Now the reward has been broadened bc it’s a list.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron It’s obviously dumb because only students and pupils receive exams. So why include A earners if they are included in students? This makes sense if you’re clarifying that A-earners are amongst students. That’s what was done with foreigners -> ambassadors.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron The implication is that a foreigner is someone who does not reside in country. It seems clear that it excludes visitors, tourists, and invaders from war.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron That would imply then that ambassadors are the only people that fit the definition of foreigners then. Which doesn’t make sense. Ambassadors are mentioned to clarify that they are indeed foreigners even though they reside in the US much of the time.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron …but mentioning a specific in succession after foreigners and aliens does not exclude other types of foreigners and aliens.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron You’re still misunderstanding me. I never made a distinction between foreign ministers and ambassadors. I’m saying both (even if taken as one thing) are a specific type of foreigner/alien. He speaks of aliens broadly and then gives a specific…

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron I’m not quibbling about the difference between foreign ministers and ambassadors. I’m saying “foreigners, aliens” would already include them both, and those terms are far broader and imply all aliens beyond just ambassadors and foreign ministers are excluded from birthright.

@dyecaster @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron In other words, whoever "belongs to the families of ambassadors or foreign minsters" is who the exclusion is for.

@JoshKRollerboy @JamesSurowiecki That’s a drop in the bucket of the number of nations in the world.

@JamesSurowiecki God, he’s a fucking idiot as always. And by the way, at least 30 countries allow birthright citizenship so he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about.

Clay Travis, who is putatively a lawyer, apparently believes Congress can overturn the 14th Amendment by passing a law. It can't.

@JamesSurowiecki Lawyers understand that you can pass any law you want, and if it gets challenged its constitutionality is determined by the courts. It doesn’t matter what you think or I think to common opinion or precedent is, if the courts decide otherwise.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron Yes, foreigner and alien describe the same thing. Ambassadors and foreign ministers are by nature foreigners and aliens, but of a specific nature. Meaning he’s including other types of aliens. So it’s a list not exclusive to ambassadors but aliens/foreigners more broadly also.

@dyecaster @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron Foreigners and aliens are the same thing. And this: x.com/1regantaylor/s…

@genericishname @jkimballcook So was Nicholas Maduro under US jurisdiction? And no, that’s not what jurisdiction means. Look up the commentary from the senators debating the Amendment.

@dyecaster @jkimballcook ... a criminal under US law. By definition, that means they're understand US jurisdiction

"the 14th amendment doesn't cover children of illegal aliens because there was no such thing as illegal aliens when it was ratified" is the same argument as "the 2nd amendment doesn't cover automatic weapons because they didn't exist then"

@cortknee1220 @RealKahall That would be allowable, if they use legislation as long as it didn’t violate the constitution. The 14th amendment guarantees citizenship to a certain type of person, it does not preclude it from being given to other types, it just excludes types from that particular guarantee.

@RealKahall The constitutional amendment was written so congress would have no part in deciding anything. Because congress is political and should never be in charge of deciding who is legal. What if a far left party takes over congress and starts giving legal status to certain people.

HOW SCOTUS SHOULD decide this Birthright Citizenship case: 1. The Constitution delegates to Congress the authority to determine the Uniform Rules of Naturalization. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4) 2. It is not proper for the POTUS to define terms via Executive Order. (Administrative Procedure Act) 3. It is not proper for SCOTUS to define terms via Court Opinion. (Separation of Powers) 4. Congress needs to do their job. It’s time we stop expecting other departments to compensate for the colossal failure of our members of Congress. Liberty over Security Principle over Party Truth over Personality

@RealKahall It’s too bad Congress believes its job is to get reelected, do nothing helpful and collect a pension.

@genericishname @jkimballcook An illegal immigrant is already a criminal by definition. But our courts can do whatever they see fit. Whether other countries have beef with that or whether we choose to honor agreements for foreign diplomats is another question. We arrested a foreign president to be tried in US

@dyecaster @jkimballcook If an illegal immigrant committed a crime on American soil, would our courts be allowed to prosecute them?

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron So foreigners/aliens are different from ambassadors and foreign ministers. So what does that mean? Tourists, illegal aliens?

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron It was originally delivered orally, correct? Sounds like a guy rattling off the top of his head to describe the types of people that would not be included… not like a guy that gave two adjectives to describe ambassadors and then actually explicitly named them too.