Anonymous #1 12w

How about you read the 14th amendment dweeb?

1

Anonymous #2 12w

This dude totally knows how the Supreme Court works

0

Anonymous #1 12w

“We think it should only apply if you have a home. Where does it say that? On the conditions to receive another superyacht from a lobbyist”

1

Anonymous #2 12w

Somebodyyyy didn’t even peep the 91 pages Justice Thomas wrote. Just decided to argue against yourself because that seems easier to argue with than someone with actual intellectual ability

1

Anonymous #1 12w

Honestly yeah, just reading his dissent is enough to dispel accusation "not caring about the Constitution" unless OP is just being dishonest.

1

Anonymous #3 12w

Of course we don't follow the text of the Constitution verbatim as there are historical nuances surrounding the creation of each amendment and it requires very careful interpretation. The issue of interpretation is which process of judicial philosophy should we ascribe to? Originalism or Living Constitutionalism? Follow the original public meaning or the meaning that evolves by modern social attitudes?

0

Anonymous #3 12w

"I deserve to own a cannon and grenades because that's what the Founding Fathers intended my right to bear arms to include." "Even though my son lived all 18 years in China, my son is a USC because he was born in Guam." What does infringing mean? What does jurisdiction mean? Interpretation is not simply "what do I think of it first hand?" Judicial Interpretation involves a conversation between past court cases on a specific issue and a decision that abides by the historical precedent.

0

Anonymous #1 12w

He just doubled down on the opinion of two judges of the 1898 birthright citizenship hearing. Keep in mind that this ruling went untouched during the most anti-immigrant periods of US History including Japanese internment. Prior to 14A, the US still had birthright citizenship from the adoption of English common law, but it was racially biased through existing laws (which Justice Thomas himself quotes). 128 years since the ruling and the argument against birthright citizenship hasn’t changed.

1

Anonymous #3 12w

Cool, that’s what the argument should’ve been then. Instead of reviving a 128-year-old dead horse just to beat it more, a more effective argument would’ve been the drastic difference in the naturalization process. When 14A was ratified and when the 1898 ruling happened, the naturalization process was basically “live here 2-5 years, don’t do crime, sign a paper for any court.” It would’ve been much easier for parents to be naturalized back then.

0

Anonymous #3 12w

On top of that, Justice Thomas didn’t even try to offer modern evidence that permanent domicile is intended. Off the top of my head, proof of residency is the bare minimum for proving your identity to request vital records (the first part of documentation) in all 50 states. Half of his dissent felt like he was calling Trump less capable than his predecessors. Birthright didn’t stop Roosevelt from imprisoning Japanese Americans.

1

Anonymous #3 12w

Oh and it mentions the whole thing about the children of spies when almost all modern espionage is either through honeypots or offering payment to military officials

1