Day One

[Suppressed Poet]

If that is all they wanted it to cover, they would have been specific and named Freed Slaves, just as the specifically named Indians in the next section of the same Amendment concerning apportionment of Representatives. That they did not do this, means the purposely left it open ended.

Going back to the 2nd amendment because that is what I am much more familiar with, it clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If I were making your same argument, I could say that clearly means exactly what it says in plain text. We have a constitutional and historical interpretation that felons & dangerous criminals should be prohibited from possessing firearms. Did the authors purposely leave out except for felons & dangerous criminals or except for XYZ weapons; and does that mean you would interpret that our government has no authority to restrict access to any weapon or people bearing arms?

[Furryrat]

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.

It absolutely is in need of a modern interpretation.

[Suppressed Poet]

To add, I do agree that the order will be defeated in our courts and that a serious change to birthright citizenship will require a constitutional amendment. However, I don’t think it’s beyond challenge & completely preposterous to suggest that applying 14th Amendment constitutional protections to the children of illegal immigrants in 2025 was never the intent.

[~Rocktar~]

No. I think I read somewhere that 22 states are already suing Trump over this executive order, and 38 are needed to ratify an amendment.

Hummm, someone mentioned 3/5 ths, I didn't look it up. Still closer to the needed number than Leftists would like.

[Gelston]

Going back to the 2nd amendment because that is what I am much more familiar with, it clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If I were making your same argument, I could say that clearly means exactly what it says in plain text. We have a constitutional and historical interpretation that felons & dangerous criminals should be prohibited from possessing firearms. Did the authors purposely leave out except for felons & dangerous criminals or except for XYZ weapons; and does that mean you would interpret that our government has no authority to restrict access to any weapon or people bearing arms?

I've already made the argument further back that they left a lot of vagueness in that Amendment, and they were a lot more Specific throughout the 14th.

[Gelston]

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.

It absolutely is in need of a modern interpretation.

If you read the text of the Amendment, it is pretty specific in what it means. If they had meant for it to only effect freed slaves and their offspring, they would have put that in there. They were extremely specific talking about Indians further in the Amendment in later sections.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, that is an exact and concise statement of what the Trump administration will argue.

Most, if not all, states have laws that require all parents, including those here illegally, to send their children to school. If they don't, the government can force the children to attend school. Both the parent and the child can face legal consequences for truancy. The children are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That is true regardless of whether or not the child is born in the U.S. Being born in the U.S., though, affects citizenship.

A diplomat, on the other hand, is a different matter. As we all know from Law and Order, diplomats and their children are not subject to U.S. criminal laws. If a diplomat or the diplomat's child commits a crime in the U.S., they will have to be prosecuted, if at all, in their home country.

Trump violated his oath -- on the same day he swore it -- by signing an executive order that he knew was unconstitutional. A normal person who did that would feel shame.

OMG U SHUD IMPEACH HIM AGAIN!

You're so broken.

And I'm here for every moment.

[Suppressed Poet]

I've already made the argument further back that they left a lot of vagueness in that Amendment, and they were a lot more Specific throughout the 14th.

Disagree. There is no vagueness in the 2nd Amendment. You are choosing to ask questions or apply situations to the 2nd, but not treating the 14th with the same level of scrutiny. I get what you are saying with the 14th specifically calling out an exception with American Indians, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the every possible variable was considered.

Do you honestly believe that the authors of the 14th Amendment intentionally meant for this to apply to foreign nationals that illegally crossed into our border of their own free will with the intention of having their child born on our lands so that they may automatically become an American citizen?

[Gelston]

Disagree. There is no vagueness in the 2nd Amendment. You are choosing to ask questions or apply situations to the 2nd, but not treating the 14th with the same level of scrutiny. I get what you are saying with the 14th specifically calling out an exception with American Indians, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the every possible variable was considered.

Do you honestly believe that the authors of the 14th Amendment intentionally meant for this to apply to foreign nationals that illegally crossed into our border with the intention of having their child born on our lands so that they may automatically become an American citizen?

There is. If they had made the amendment say "The people have the right to bear arms commensurate with the technology level of the US military and this right shall not be infringed in anyway, whether through tax or license" then it wouldn't be vague. They left way too much shit open for interpretation as it is written. The 14th didn't.

[Suppressed Poet]

There is. If they had made the amendment say "The people have the right to bear arms commensurate with the technology level of the US military and this right shall not be infringed in anyway, whether through tax or license" then it wouldn't be vague. They left way too much shit open for interpretation as it is written. The 14th didn't.

I won’t disagree that added language would not help clarify, but that was not even a thought in 1791. The arms the people possessed were the same technology level as the military.

But I digress…respectfully, answer my question about if you believe the author(s) of the 14th amendment intended for those protections to apply to the children of foreign nationals that entered our country illegally of their own free will.