Matt Pethybridge

The answer to "how is it possible" is that a good chunk of Republicans in Virginia couldn't be bothered to vote. We now have to endure 4 years of Democrat electoral dominance because a half million Republicans who voted for Trump didn't vote on 11/4/25. Good job, people.

Well, yes, of course. The militia clause is a prefatory clause that justifies the right. But the right being justified is, on its face, by its ordinary meaning, limited to "bear(ing) arms" as the founders would have meant that term. There is no language in there that covers owning crew served weapons or artillery or other ordnance.

@MattPethybridge @jkimballcook Militias has meaning. They have bigger guns and fight countries

I'm probably one of a very small number who thinks Heller was right that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not a collective right, but wrong to hold that "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" has no substantive meaning

@sean91237 @jkimballcook No. This ignores the plain meaning of "bear" and the original public meaning of "arms." Bear means to carry on your person, and an arm was a weapon or armor carried for either offensive or defensive purposes. The framers would have classified a nuke as "ordnance."

@jkimballcook Strict reading of the 2nd would mean you can have private armies that have the means of going toe-to-toe with the US military. This would include nuclear weapons. Yet we eliminated that because it’s just not practical at all in the modern age

@NormPeterson14 @briannalyman2 Nope. Leave out the word aliens and it reads "foreigners who belong to the families of ambassadors..." "Aliens" was logically not required, but many descriptive words are not strictly necessary to the sentence.

@MattPethybridge @briannalyman2 Looked to me like a list. Foreigners, aliens, people who belong to the families of ambassadors, stuff like that.

One of the strongest arguments against birthright citizenship: Sen. Howard said during opening remarks of the citizenship clause debate: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States...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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” As Edward Erler anticipated, the left has argued that Howard meant to only include “families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” when he used the wording “who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” But “if so,” Erler argues, “this would be an extraordinarily loose way of speaking: ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens and their designation as such would be superfluous.” Erler argues the commas following “foreigners” and “aliens” “suggest a discrete listing of separate classes of persons excluded from jurisdiction.”

@jayb0g1 @greg_price11 This makes no sense. 14 says people "born or naturalized" here are US citizens. This applies to the baby. It DOES NOT apply to the mother.

@MattPethybridge @greg_price11 Unless you're ready to say that undocumented immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction and therefore do not have to follow US law, then the 14th Amendment absolutely applies to undocumented immigrants.

It just feels so painfully obvious that the 14th amendment does not mean that a 9-months pregnant woman from Mexico can cross the Rio Grande illegally, give birth, and be allowed to stay because her child is now a natural born citizen.

@brianknotts @marcorandazza It meant Indians, too.

If "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means "diplomats," why didn't they just say that? I just can't get past that question.

I hold two opinions: 1. The Constitution very clearly grants citizenship to the children born here to illegal aliens. 2. I support the imprisonment and subsequent deportation of illegal aliens in general, but especially those who have children here. The correct way to handle this situation is not to bend the citizenship clause over a table and rape it anally, it is to enforce existing laws to prevent birth tourism by refusing to issue visas, and to deport illegal aliens who have children here.

And it sets the stage for the political battle that follows. In the long-term, this is an existential fight for the culture of this country that has developed over 250 years. To favor birthright citizenship is to endorse mass migration to the U.S. with malign motives. That's the political debate. If necessary, the end of that debate should be a constitutional amendment. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

@JBlunt1018 Just appending a short note to say that I was a conservative and an constitutional originalist back when Trump was a New York Democrat donating money to the Clintons. I'm glad he has seen the light, but he is wrong on the citizenship clause.

@JBlunt1018 MAGA here, as one minute on my timeline will prove. This is the correct take. Either you respect what the Constitution says when you don't like it, or you don't respect the Constitution at all.

Go with me for a second on the birthright citizenship scenario — simple version. You’re saying citizenship should depend on whether someone is here “legally.” Okay. Who defines “legal”? Congress. And Congress can change that definition anytime. Now fast forward 25–30 years. A different political wave takes over, not your side. Let’s say a very aggressive left-wing government. They decide certain groups are a “problem” or “historically harmful” or “overrepresented.” So they pass a law redefining “legal presence.” Not by geography. Not by birth. By criteria like: — ideology — ancestry — demographic quotas — “equity” frameworks Sounds crazy but we’ve literally done versions of this before, go see the Chinese Exclusion Act. Now under YOUR framework: Only people who meet this new definition of “legal” are considered fully “subject to jurisdiction.” Everyone else are not legal therefore not covered so their kids don’t get citizenship. So you now have: A child born in the U.S. Grew up here Never left Knows no other country But not a citizen… because Congress changed a definition of what legal means. Nothing about the child changed. Only politics did. That’s the entire problem with your argument. You’re turning citizenship from a constitutional guarantee into a policy lever. And policy levers get pulled. The 14th Amendment was written specifically to stop that, to make citizenship automatic at birth so it couldn’t be manipulated by whoever happens to be in power. Because once you let Congress define “who counts,” you’re not protecting citizenship anymore even for yourself.

No, he said "foreigners, aliens, who are the families of..." It is not a list. It is an appositive comma usage akin to a parenthetical statement. The clerk who transcribed the speech he was giving when he said that could just as easily have transcribed it as "foreigners (aliens) who are the families of ambassadors..." But the clerk back then transcribed it with commas, unaware that a time would come when native English speakers, Americans, would think that a comma is only used to make lists. See what I did there?

@LumpyPumpkinz @MattPethybridge @ConservativaPol @JustinWStapley That's correct. But they specifically noted foreigners, aliens ALONG with diplomats and family of diplomats/ambassadors... so no foreigners should be entitled to birthright citizenship. Anyway you slice it, Illegal aliens and foreign tourists are foreigners.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." When it comes to abandoning the plain speech of the Constitution and trying to turn it into a "living document," we've reached the point where, yes, both sides do it. And we should reject both sides when they try to do it.

@TeddysGrandson1 @JustinWStapley Wong Kim Ark is not the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment talks about jurisdiction, not allegiance, you insufferable moron.

@MattPethybridge @JustinWStapley It comes from Wong Kim Ark case Let the adults have this one

@Hanakookie1 @briannalyman2 I am not leftist. One minute on my timeline will convince you of that. But I am a constitutional originalist. The Constitution says what it says, regardless of whether we like it. Life, liberty or property is a list. This usage is NOT A LIST. It is an appositive comma usage.

@MattPethybridge @briannalyman2 Leftist will pretend to debate on things they do not understand. Seriously. If it was in federal law. Then it would be so. This mess is due to no one following federal law. Which is drafted upon the constitution. No child born on American soil to foreign parents gets a passport

@Vincee1776 @briannalyman2 It is not a list. It is an appositive comma usage. You have a noun foreigners, being described as "aliens" "who belong to the families of ambassadors..." In structure, the sentence is identical to, say, "all natives, Americans, have the right to free speech."

@MattPethybridge @briannalyman2 If that was true what would be the point of even listing foreigners and aliens? It wouldn't be needed.

@furiouswhopper @briannalyman2 It is not a list. It is an appositive comma useage. It CANNOT be a list, grammatically, because "who belong to the families of ambassadors" would be modifying nothing. Diagram the sentence like you did in the 9th grade and you will see it cannot possibly be a list.

@MattPethybridge @briannalyman2 It's a list of four things: * Foreigners * Aliens * Ppl who belong to the families of ambassadors * foreign ministers accredited to the government of the US Hilarious to me how much terrible logic exists because they didn't include an Oxford comma.

No it doesn't. This sentence construction is known as an appositive. The commas are used to offset the description of the noun. Here, the noun is "foreigners" being described as "aliens" being offset from "who belong to..." It is a parenthetical comma use, and a comma is required before and after "aliens."

@MattPethybridge @briannalyman2 Kinda depends on whether you assume the existence of an "and" after that last comma, or an "or." And the sentence makes more sense if you interpret it with an "or."

@Hanakookie1 @briannalyman2 It is called an appositive comma use. Look it up. It is a common usage. In this construction, the commas before and after the description of the noun function the same as parathenses.

@MattPethybridge @briannalyman2 No. The use of the comma is to separate. If it meant to be inclusive he would have added “, and”. Such as life, liberty, or property. Life and liberty are independent but property is a conditional. The use of the commas.

@Publius215 @briannalyman2 No, it is grammatically correct as written. Here, "aliens" is a parenthetical type statement modifying the phrase "foreigners who belong to..." This is a perfectly correct use of a comma. It is called an appositive description.

@MattPethybridge @briannalyman2 This would be “… foreigners; aliens who belong to…”

@BlackDumpling It doubtlessly saved many American lives. It probably also saved Japanese lives, but it is fully justified--indeed, required--by the fact that it saved American lives.

アメリカ人は、日本への原爆投下についてどのように感じているのでしょうか？ 正直に話しましょう。 まず、当時のアメリカ人は喜びました。日本人に与えた苦しみに対してというより、戦争が終わったことを喜んだのです。あれはもう何十年も前のことですが、当時は多くのアメリカ人が日本人を本当に嫌っていました。その点は認めたいと思います。 しかし、今日ではどうでしょうか？ まともな考えを持つ人は、原爆投下を「良いこと」「肯定的なこと」として見ていません。私たちはそれを肯定的に語ることはありません。むしろ、「必要だったかどうか」という議論がほとんどです。 アメリカ人の間では一般的な見方として、原爆は当時としてものすごく恐ろしいものだったけれど、代替案はもっと悪かったというものです。当時の私たちの認識では、日本側は絶対に降伏する気がないように見えました。つまり、日本本土への実際の侵攻作戦です。死者はおそらく数千万規模になると予想されていました。 重要な点として、もしアメリカが本土侵攻をして、そのために必要な血と財産の代償を払っていたら、戦前の日本政府と軍部指導部がそのまま権力を維持することはほぼ不可能だったでしょう。日本はドイツと同じように、長期間の連合国による占領を受け、政治体制に大きな変更を強いられた可能性が高いです。 これはあなたを不快にさせたり、恥をかかせるために言っているのではありません。ただ、事実を尊重して話しているだけです。何十万人もの息子たちを死なせて、何年もの残酷な戦いの末に、戦争を始めた当時の体制をそのまま復活させるなんて、アメリカ人にそんな選択肢はありえません。 本土を取るためには、何十万人、場合によっては数百万人のアメリカの若者たちの命が犠牲になったでしょう。それ以上に、日本側の民間人の死者は数千万規模になっていたかもしれません。私たちは何年も非難爆撃を続け、その後必要なら家一軒一軒を攻め落とさなければならなかったでしょう。 その時点でアメリカはヨーロッパで勝利したばかりで、日本は完全に孤立・封鎖されていました。日本全体が包囲され、史上初めて空からの攻撃も含めた完全な国家包囲網にさらされることになっていたのです。 日本人は勇敢に戦ったでしょう。それが日本人の気質です。しかし、その時点では勝算がありませんでした。 原爆を投下したことで、皆が衝撃を受け、目を覚ましました。歴史上、あれほどの生の力を目撃した人はいませんでした。それが存在することすら、落ちるまで誰も知らなかったのです。 まるでアメリカが空飛ぶ円盤（フライングソーサー）で攻撃してきたようなものです。勝ち目はない、戦いようがない、そして「ただ待っていればいい」という希望を完全に打ち消しました。当時の日本人から見れば、アメリカは無限にそれを持っているように思えたからです。 原爆を落としたことは恐ろしく、苦しみは極めて悲惨なものでした。しかし、アメリカでは一般的に、本土侵攻を試みるよりはるかに悪い結果になっていたというのが受け入れられている見方です。 繰り返し強調しますが、私はこれを日本人を恥ずかしく思わせるために言っているのではありません。どちらの側も、はるかに大きな犠牲を払うことになっていたでしょう。 あなたはアメリカ人がどのように感じているかを知りたかったので、一般的に言えば、これが私たちの感じ方です。 We are not our great grandfathers, and you are not yours. Their sins and their victories belong to them alone. Today we cherish the friendship we have built with you and I hope my candor has not threatened that in any way.

@neoavatara Now do the second amendment.

If you don't like birthright citizenship...work on a constitutional amendment. If you are too lazy to do that, and do the hard work convincing the majority of Americans you are right...well, then you've answered your own question if that is what Americans want or not.

@marcorandazza Indians were born on US soil, but members of their tribe, and subject to tribal law. They were being denied citizenship. Diplomats might have children in the US, and granting citizenship to their children would complicate foreign relations.

why not just write it without the highlighted text, if it means the same thing with or without the highlighted text?