Originally published at: The Originalists Are Getting the Birthright Citizenship Case Spectacularly Wrong - TPM – Talking Points Memo
This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at Balls and Strikes. Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral argument in Trump v. Barbara, a case that challenges the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order purporting to redefine birthright citizenship. Although the Court has not yet…
2 Likes
Is “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state” part of the originalists reading of the Second Amendment?
Apparently not.
7 Likes
Originalism is just a way of rewriting history and stamping the rewrite with the imprimatur of a Court decree. It’s cosmic hubris. “We who sit here 150 years later know better than those alive at the time of the law or Constitutional Amendment’s enactment what the intent was, such that we can say with confidence that those contemporaries who interpreted the law and Constitution Amendments at the time of their enactment had it entirely wrong.” Fucking nonsense. It’s nothing but a confection baked up by the white supremacists and their propaganda and subjugation machinery.
9 Likes
Okay, waitaminute! If citizenship is conferred to
“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
then
it follows that Donald J Trump, born in the US, but, by order of the Supreme Court of the United States, not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – is no longer a citizen.
Fine. That means he can’t be President. The logic is airtight.What do you have to say about THAT, Clarence? Antonin? Brett?
For that matter, if the “logic” of the twisted ruling on Presidential Immunity were to hold, the act of being elected and sworn in would automatically strip citizenship from the man (of course, it has to be) elected. How do you resolve that one?
9 Likes
Eastman can be (Acting) Attorney General when Bondi makes her graceless exit. Will have to win a cage match with Giuliani for the job, tho.
3 Likes
The fact that the SupCt took the case at all suggests that there is ratfuckery afoot. The circuits courts were unanimous in their rejection of dump’s executive order. That is generally sufficient reason for the Court to reject taking a case. Clearly, at least four Justices agree with dump’s racist bullshit executive order.
15 Likes
How can they even debate the meaning of the words “All” or “Persons”?
Unless they are going claim it only applies to Persons descendant from US Citizens living in the US when the Amendment was ratified. July 9, 1868
Sorry, CF-DJT. You and your entire family are illegal aliens.
7 Likes
I couldn’t agree more. They are saving the big bombs for the end, and this will be the biggest bomb of this term. No matter how many legal scholars talk about the “plain language” of the amendment, they are missing the point entirely. The court gave up actually trying to adhere to established law quite a while ago - now the job is to figure out what you want the end result to be and then find a legal path to it, no matter how much bullshit, lying and willful misinterpretatiion may be involved. They are corrupt through and through.
Thank you Leonard Leo.
15 Likes
That’s a real conundrum there.
Clearly the oathbreaking traitor is beyond the scope of the laws of the land, so, ipso facto and rub a dub dub, he ain’t no citizen and is squatting in our House.
And every would be President would be ineligible as well.
Yeah, John, way to preserve your legacy.
3 Likes
This analysis is great and it would normally be very reassuring to its readers. However, we now have the Supreme Court of Calvinball, where the only rule is that there are no rules. They feel no obligation to follow precedent or logic. Their only aim is to twist logic into whatever pretzel shape they need in order to get the “conservative” outcomes they desire, and their attitude seems to be “and there’s nothing you can do to stop us.”
After all, if they adhered to the same opinions as the author, they would never have taken up the case in the first place. That fact that they did, indicates that they have every intention of ruling in Trump’s favor.
10 Likes
The only thing ORIGINAL about so called ORINALISTS interpretation of the constitution is that their interpretation is original to them.
As to your point about the 2nd amendment, the author of the amendment, James Madison, who was also the author of the entire original draft of the constitution itself, insisted on the adding of “a well regulated militia” because the very purpose of the amendment was to allow states to have an army to protect them against the possible tyranny of the federal government. It also was intended that the federal government should have no army and rely on the states for defense. It why in the civil war you had the Alabama 3rd and the Wisconsin 7th. The Civil War is also why you had a civil war and why the federal government no longer relies on states for the army and therefore you no longer have the Alabama 3rd or the Wisconsin 7th.
10 Likes
Probably the same way that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t REALLY mean it when he said to sell all of one’s goods and give the money to the poor.
4 Likes
So, these yahoos argue that a child born to undocumented parents is not “subject to…[U.S.} jurisdiction.” How do you then prosecute that child? When exactly do they become subject to jurisdiction? BTW, that clause really only pertains to children of diplomats born here, but why muddy the waters with facts? I agree with others, the fact that this case was taken up by the Supremes does not bode well.
7 Likes
In the 1960’s, I remember vacation travel to Florida, browsing a Georgia restaurant’s souvenir section where they had confederate flag, license plates saying “Never forget, never forgive”. Originalism in the flesh, because the past ain’t dead, it is not even past.
4 Likes
Originanimalism. (Spits)
1 Like
We need to think outside the box here. Children born to non-citizens should such simply incorporate under the laws of one of the blue states. The Supreme Court has already decided that corporations are people, after all.
7 Likes
" When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
Alice in Wonderland
6 Likes
Back in the 80s, we met a charming young couple, members of a diplomatic staff, from Denmark as I recall. They made sure that both their kids were born here on two different trips.
2 Likes
The term “War of Northern Aggression” first gained prominence in the 1950s. The rednecks believed that the North caused the Civil War, don’t ya know.
I recall dopes in the barracks still fighting the Civil War. I would find myself close to fisticuffs when I would tell them to STFU.
3 Likes
18 USC 242 authorizes capital punishment in cases where deprivation of civil rights under color of law involves kidnapping. Just saying.
3 Likes