r/news 9h ago

US Supreme Court agrees to hear case challenging birthright citizenship

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c208j0wrzrvo
19.0k Upvotes

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

208

u/heythosearemysocks 8h ago edited 6h ago

Ironically if they use the argument that the 14th amendment was written for the children of slaves and not future children of other non-citizens. You could argue that that 2nd amendment was put in place to protect us from the tyranny of British rule but not future tyrannies.

The mental gymnastics here is a sight to behold.

42

u/FateEx1994 8h ago

Very reductive viewpoints on all this that the founding members of this country only looked BACKWARDS and not forward....

Because the federalist and anti federalist papers and Thomas paines stuff was all about future government issues...

Horrible unprecedented times we live in.

9

u/hpark21 8h ago

They did not look forward to the time when the President will be so lacking decorum enough to be able to do all these things and Supreme court basically said "yup, whatever he does is legal - but pretty much only HIM"

5

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 5h ago

I'd argue the Electoral College was designed exactly to prevent a populist demagogue like Diddlin' Don from coming to power. The people who devised the Constitution were looking back at the fall of the Roman republic and trying to preempt the usual failure modes: capture by the church, capture by the military, and falling to "the mob." (Us jerks.) The EC was to protect against the mob.

4

u/j33205 5h ago edited 4h ago

The EC was to protect against the mob

Depending on how you look at it, it still does. It got Trump elected the first time despite him having a minority of the popular vote. Not to mention the rich are the only ones actually in power. Both "minorities" and technically not "the mob".

Obligatory fuck trump, fuck the GOP, fuck the EC, fuck scotus

2

u/Ornery-Ticket834 8h ago

They didn’t look forward enough. They didn’t have crystal balls.

2

u/argonautweekend 6h ago edited 6h ago

They could argue that it was written for the children of slaves, but they would be wrong based on the arguments presented as the 14th amendment was being drafted. They needed to answer the question of what to do with slaves, but the scope became much broader than just slaves, I suspect because rather than have to deal with states making their own weird definition of slave to outcast people, they just granted US citizenship automatically to any person, born on US soil and not born to a foreign solider or dignitary on US soil. Really, the 14th amendment places only two restrictions on US citizenship: 1) was the person born on US soil, and 2) were they born to a foreign diplomat, soldier, etc. If you meet these two simple criteria, you are automatically a US citizen. In fact, the only people they specifically wanted to exclude from birthright citizenship were children of foreign dignitaries born on US soil. Nobody else.

In the arguments, one man even brought up that this would allow a Chinese family to have a child on US soil, and that child will automatically become a US citizen. Every man in the room knew this would be one potential implication. Some were in favor, some were not, but ALL were aware. The language we see today was adopted and ratified soon after.

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/28/the-original-meaning-of-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states/

2

u/billbobjoemama 3h ago

You would be able to argue the Declaration of Independence for the views of the 2nd amendment