Robert’s and Barrett did as expected
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (86)
sorted by:
Original intent is far fetched? We still have written records of the debates around the reconstruction amendments, the 14th was clearly for freed slaves and native tribes only.
So would you say that only blacks are entitled to 'equal protection' and not other races for that reason?
Irrelevant, the purpose of that part of the amendment was to extend citizenship to the recently freed and the tribes living on US soil only.
It's very relevant. If you say that what the 'purpose' was, limits the amendment, then that means that only blacks are entitled to equal protection - if only they are entitled to citizenship by birth.
No, because the sentence fragment you're hyper-focusing is part of a sentence that clearly specifies 'citizens' in the part of the sentence you're ignoring. Meanwhile, a totally different sentence adresses the anchor babies question. You're twisting things like a lawyer here.
LOL what? Cathy Newman is that you?
I didn't claim that this was what he WAS saying. I claimed that this was the logical conclusion from his argument.
If original, subjective intent limits the application of law, and the 14th amendment was designed to only protect blacks, isn't that obvious?
BTW, in case it's not obvious, I think birthright citizenship is possibly the dumbest idea known to man. But it does seem to be what it says.