The 14th amendment
- Thread starter Kail
- Start date
Intent is not the supreme controlling issue. The wording of the amendment is the most important issue, followed by the precedents that are decided. The Supreme Court doesn't want legal chaos. They do their best to stand by old decisions and only limit them at most.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
That's not the way it's SUPPOSED to work. The words of the amendment, interpreted through the lens of the legislative intent (after all, who better to tell us what the words mean than those who WROTE them?) is the proper way to interpret amendments.
Just because the modern court has it wrong doesn't make the modern court RIGHT.
So you've dug up the corpses of the members of the 40th Congress and interviewed them?
The difficulty with "legislative intent" is that it's unlikely all the legislators (at the time) thought exactly the same way about the wording. The amendment passed because enough people agreed upon the words and not necessarily one person's interpretation of every one of those words. In fact, many (if not most) pieces of law were specifically designed to be ambiguous enough word-wise to win over a few stray votes from people who wanted more flexibility in implementation (if not the outright ability to ignore much of the legislative guidance).
In fact, I would argue that the phrase "legislative intent" (as a consistent and solid viewpoint) is somewhat contradictory to the reality of the legislative process.
In fact, I would argue that the phrase "legislative intent" (as a consistent and solid viewpoint) is somewhat contradictory to the reality of the legislative process.
I've always felt that citizinship should be gained if your parents are here legally, or you become naturalized. A newborn infant shouldn't have any citizinship rights anywhere, independent of its parents, since it couldn't take care of itself.
But nobody asked me when writing these laws.
But nobody asked me when writing these laws.
However, the fact that they are the Supreme Court does make their decisions regarding the intent of the law binding on everyone. Therefore, your argument here is irrelevant.
The debates over the Amendment are on record, and the opinions of the Congress differ; there is no clear intent to go by.
My parents were American citizens living in Great Britain when I was born. I had dual citizenship. This is not just an American concept.
And darkwing, watch who you're calling a "sprog", especially in Misc.
And darkwing, watch who you're calling a "sprog", especially in Misc.
Maybe we should start calling him The Witch of Endor.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
On the contrary, the prime author of the amendment made his position EXPLICITLY clear in the record, and has been quoted.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Congressional Record? All sessions of both houses are part of that record.
No one can possibly know what the intent of men now dead for over 100 years was... unless you've a time machine available.
Any one can make ANY idea thought up over any law as the "original intent" of the lawmakers....as long as they are dead and no longer able to tell you what that intent actually was...
in fact I can state that the original intent of the 14th amendment was to allow anchor babies to be born thereby ensuring a rapid increase of the US population...
and dare you to prove me wrong...
Any one can make ANY idea thought up over any law as the "original intent" of the lawmakers....as long as they are dead and no longer able to tell you what that intent actually was...
in fact I can state that the original intent of the 14th amendment was to allow anchor babies to be born thereby ensuring a rapid increase of the US population...
and dare you to prove me wrong...
Last edited:
Yeah, but that's the problem with "legislative intent." The only time it is relatively clear is when it's actually a part of the statute. Otherwise 435 people vote, having at least 435 reasons and intentions.
That's the problem with Scalia's form of Constitutional interpretation--Originalism--we can't know the intent behind the final version of the Constitution unless it says, "This is intended to ....." At the same time, utter freedom in "updating" the Constitution is a bad idea--which is why there is stare decisis, as noted by a prior poster.
And for those who want to follow only the original Constitution...well, any woman stating that is all for removing her own right to vote. And any man who doesn't own land is also stating that he is all for removing his own right to vote. Only white male landowners had such a right. I don't think original-Constitutionalists are totally aware that's what they're advocating. And slavery--yes, they're advocating that too.
And that State actions need not follow the US Constitution. They're advocating that also, since that was a Supreme Court interpretation. Or a right to privacy--since that's no where explicitly stated as a right. So a lot of what they're doing in their own home and property is, well it's not private under the original Constitution.
Abstract laws and ideas are great, but what happens when you have a real-life situation that the law must be applied to? And then another situation where the same law must apply, but how, because the situations are (like most things in real life) sufficiently different that "the totality of the circumstances" must be taken into account?
You have one law to be applied to all cases of this type. Circumstances in case 1 give result A; similar-but-non-identical circumstances in case 2 give result B. The average person would say, "Yeah, that's the right decision each time." So now there's interpretation of one law where the result falls onto one side or the other. And case 3 comes along. And case 4. Etc, etc. Can someone really say that each of those different results were actually intended from the start? Highly unlikely.
That's the problem with Scalia's form of Constitutional interpretation--Originalism--we can't know the intent behind the final version of the Constitution unless it says, "This is intended to ....." At the same time, utter freedom in "updating" the Constitution is a bad idea--which is why there is stare decisis, as noted by a prior poster.
And for those who want to follow only the original Constitution...well, any woman stating that is all for removing her own right to vote. And any man who doesn't own land is also stating that he is all for removing his own right to vote. Only white male landowners had such a right. I don't think original-Constitutionalists are totally aware that's what they're advocating. And slavery--yes, they're advocating that too.
And that State actions need not follow the US Constitution. They're advocating that also, since that was a Supreme Court interpretation. Or a right to privacy--since that's no where explicitly stated as a right. So a lot of what they're doing in their own home and property is, well it's not private under the original Constitution.
Abstract laws and ideas are great, but what happens when you have a real-life situation that the law must be applied to? And then another situation where the same law must apply, but how, because the situations are (like most things in real life) sufficiently different that "the totality of the circumstances" must be taken into account?
You have one law to be applied to all cases of this type. Circumstances in case 1 give result A; similar-but-non-identical circumstances in case 2 give result B. The average person would say, "Yeah, that's the right decision each time." So now there's interpretation of one law where the result falls onto one side or the other. And case 3 comes along. And case 4. Etc, etc. Can someone really say that each of those different results were actually intended from the start? Highly unlikely.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
There's this little thing called the Congressional Record that proves you wrong. They wrote down what was said by the debating parties concerning the legislation.
Senator Trumbull:
Senator Howard’s statement:
Citations from the congressional record taken from here:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress....er-understanding-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
Full disclosure: The site quoted is a "birthright citizenship site" that disagrees with the position taken by the offering legislators. Therefore it CANNOT be accused of having any bias in citing the Congressmen in question. In other words, even those who oppose what they said agree that that IS what they said.
Legislative intent has always been a nebulous area that has been twisted in every direction. Often, different people disagree on what the law should do, but they will at least agree on the wording (so they'll interpret it differently). These are legislatures. The constitution is full of these examples where even people who voted on it disagreed (documented in notes, memoirs, federalist papers, etc). They only have the wording to go on. And, no, you can't go with the original intent of the guy who wrote it, but the original intent of the guy who wrote it, every congressmen who voted for it, and every person who ratified it in the states
Of course children born here should be citizens. to even question it is absurd. Even if the parents came here illegally the baby broke no law and punishing them for the wrongdoing of another is unjust. Seeing how the only babies people are worried about seem to be hispanic, it is hard to see people who wish to void their rights as anything but racist.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
The records are quite clear. The parents MUST be persons either natural born, or legalized AND completely under subjection to US law.
Illegal aliens by definition are not subjecting themselves to US law (indeed, are DEFYING US law), and thus their babies cannot be considered citizens.
As a President once said: "There you go again..."
Race is irrelevant. Law and order are what is relevant. The US has every right to restrict who comes here, and the rest of the world has a duty to respect our sovereignty in that regard.
The amendment clearly states that anybody born here who is not the child of a diplomat is a citizen. Just because you are terrified of spanish speaking brown people is no reason to change things. That you would think that these babies are a threat to our soverignty is laughable.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
No, it does NOT.
I quote AGAIN:
Children of foreign nationals (legally OR illegally) are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore CANNOT be citizens.
Neither are Native Americans, for that matter, since they are members of their Nation (tribe) under the law.
This is explicitly clear from the words of the Amendment Authors and offerers, as presented in the appropriate congressional record.
