Robert’s and Barrett did as expected
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (83)
sorted by:
Far-fetched? It would be the normal understanding when the amendment was written.
Obviously, it wasn't meant to be applied to illegals, but the way it's written seems pretty straightforward.
If you're disappointed, you should really look at the initial reaction to Trump's order. It sure didn't sound like they thought this would get 4 votes. Rather, they were saying that it would be laughed out of court. It wasn't.
it didn't even apply to the indians, of course they didn't apply it to squatemalans and chinese tourists
now that fucking turk gets to gloat
Again, if you asked the guys who wrote it originally, they would laugh at the idea it gave citizenship to illegals. Don't change the subject.
According to Scalia, originalism means the public meaning of the words at the time of their writing. So what you write down matters, not just the thoughts that are going about in your head.
If you go by the public meaning of these words at the time of the writing, would they support birthright citizenship? Obviously, yes.
Given that there were 4 votes for the contrary proposition, maybe there is a good case to be made, but I haven't yet read it.
Why would you think that "under the jurisdiction of" included illegals in the 19th century?
The guy who wrote the amendment clearly stipulated "this won't apply to illegals" but did not include it in the text. So either the amendment was written by an idiot or they viewed it as so self evident they didn't need to mention it. Kind of like how the founders would never in a million years extend freedom of religion to non Christians.