Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism (Read 627 times)
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4171
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Reply #10 - Oct 31st, 2018 at 4:07pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 3:55pm:
So all this time you've been telling me SCOTUS decides what the Constitution means you were misrepresenting your true belief?




There's no "belief" to it.  The constitution says that the USSC decides cases arising under the constitution.

I'm keep mentioning that because you seem to think that it means something that you disagree with the USSC on almost everything arising under the constitution.

All it means is that you disagree with the constitution.


  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4171
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Reply #11 - Oct 31st, 2018 at 4:08pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 3:53pm:
Is that what you think?

Does the term "citizen" actually have any meaning?




Sure.  It means, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

  Guess where those words are from?
  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35513
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Reply #12 - Oct 31st, 2018 at 6:24pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 4:07pm:
There's no "belief" to it.  The constitution says that the USSC decides cases arising under the constitution.


Good, that's another time you agree with what I've been saying.

But you were saying, as I also agree, that it is the plain language of the Constitution, viewed in light of the original meanings and intent that is controlling.

That's why you should go find out what was intended... Was the Court wrong to say that children born to diplomats in the U.S. are exempted?

If the full intent of the 14th Amendment was to do nothing but make sure all ex-slaves were recognized as citizens, then the court would have been right to exempt diplomatic children.

And the Court would have been wrong to create "birthright citizens" who were not ex-slaves out of whole cloth.

Let us know when you learn something. Thanks.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35513
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Reply #13 - Oct 31st, 2018 at 6:28pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 4:08pm:
Sure.  It means, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

  Guess where those words are from?
Monty Python?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4171
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Reply #14 - Oct 31st, 2018 at 9:10pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 6:24pm:
Good, that's another time you agree with what I've been saying.

But you were saying, as I also agree, that it is the plain language of the Constitution, viewed in light of the original meanings and intent that is controlling.


No, I wasn't saying that.

I can read the plain language of the constitution, but if the USSC reads it differently due to the factors you mention of "the beliefs of the ancients or whatever," the constitution allows them to do that.  Or more frequently, if the reinterpret the plain language of the constitution to fit in with what modern people think as they did when they legalized gay marriage, the constitution allows them to do that also.

You seem to want to have it all ways at once, Jeff.

  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7896
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Reply #15 - Oct 31st, 2018 at 9:19pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 12:39pm:
The point is that no one should have extra rights based on which side of El Rio Grand-eh they were born on.


Exactly.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35513
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Reply #16 - Nov 1st, 2018 at 7:26am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 9:10pm:
No, I wasn't saying that.

I can read the plain language of the constitution, but if the USSC reads it differently due to the factors you mention of "the beliefs of the ancients or whatever," the constitution allows them to do that.  Or more frequently, if the reinterpret the plain language of the constitution to fit in with what modern people think as they did when they legalized gay marriage, the constitution allows them to do that also.

You seem to want to have it all ways at once, Jeff.

No, I only want it one way, always.

If the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment meant if to have one effect, and the S.Ct. reads it as having a different effect, the original meaning has been altered by the Court, which they have no power to do.

Reinterpreting the Constitution to meet the desires of "modern" people is definitely something the Court is not authorized to do.

The provisions of Article V are the only legal means of altering the Constitution to suit modern needs and desires, and that's exactly why Article V was included.

In the matter of same sex marriage, the Court didn't change the Constitution, they just finally recognized that in this area also, individuals have inalienable rights of conscience and action under theories of general liberty that the states may not deny.

As far as the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship, I found this interesting article-

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/birthright-citizenship-american-ide...

I found this, from the article, to be particularly puzzling-

"Republican Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced the citizenship clause and said it “will not, of course, include persons in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” (Emphasis added.)"

He clearly states that it was not intended to include children born to diplomats, but just as clearly says it was not intended to include children born to "foreigners, aliens"...

Nevertheless, 30 years later, in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that children born in America to non-citizen Chinese immigrants are citizens...

Why the children of diplomats are still excluded while the children of aliens were included by a S.Ct. decision is a mystery to me...

The argument against diplomat's children seems to turn on the issue of diplomats not being "under the jurisdiction" of the U.S., but I would contend that they are, that the "diplomatic immunity" granted to them is a legislative nicety rather than a Constitutional exclusion.

Anyway, that's the sort of thing that proper Constitutional interpretation requires, a resort to the original intent of the people who wrote and ratified the part in question.

If the 14th Amendment was ratified with the understanding that, as Senator Howard claimed, it would not include children born to aliens, then that is how it must be understood and enforced.

If it is now desired that children born to aliens be given citizenship, it seems clear to me that a Constitutional amendment would first be required.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35513
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Reply #17 - Nov 1st, 2018 at 7:29am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 9:19pm:
Exactly.
This takes us back to the contention that citizenship is a "right", which I find no more compelling than the claim that voting is a "right".

If both are "rights", then everyone in the world possesses them both, and everyone in the world has a natural claim on U.S. citizenship and can vote in our elections.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4171
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Reply #18 - Nov 1st, 2018 at 7:53am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 1st, 2018 at 7:26am:
No, I only want it one way, always.

If the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment meant if to have one effect, and the S.Ct. reads it as having a different effect, the original meaning has been altered by the Court, which they have no power to do.

Reinterpreting the Constitution to meet the desires of "modern" people is definitely something the Court is not authorized to do.


They are equally as authorized to reinterpret the plain language of the constitution to fit contemporary sensibilities as they are to reinterpret the plain language of the constitution to fit the sensibilities of people in the late 18th century.

Arguments that they really didn't mean the what the plain language said are absurd attempts at making mind-reading of dead people a legitimate basis for legal decisions.  Even if you show writing in which a politician says, "Oh damn, we really meant . . . " that has even less validity.  It is very common for politicians to say one thing to one group and one thing to another.

Either the government must follow the exact words of the constitution or the government is allowed to interpret it.  The constitution clearly gives the USSC the power to say whether and how it can be interpreted.  If it didn't, we wouldn't need a USSC in the first place; politicians would follow the constitution with only the voters to hold them accountable for doing so.

  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35513
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Reply #19 - Nov 1st, 2018 at 8:30am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Nov 1st, 2018 at 7:53am:
They are equally as authorized to reinterpret the plain language of the constitution to fit contemporary sensibilities as they are to reinterpret the plain language of the constitution to fit the sensibilities of people in the late 18th century.


Which is, not at all.

SCOTUS has jurisdiction under the Constitution.

They are empowered to do things like review the intent of the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution so as to decide that, no, the Framers and ratifying conventions had no intention of creating a national government with the power to control every aspect of economic life in America; They had in fact just fought a war to get rid of a government that claimed that power, so, the broad construction of the commerce clause is invalid.

In fact, the first decisions of SCOTUS regarding FDRs New Deal programs said just that, that the government had been granted no power to accomplish such things.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Brithright Citizenship and Libertarianism
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy