While I appreciate Adam's perspective, I'm not convinced that Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided. Also, his parents were lawful permanent residents, and that matters. I also wish you had included John Eastman's different perspective on the matter among your excellent list of clips. Reading much of the Senate debate on the 14th Amendment, it is clear to me that they would never have ascribed to what we recognize as birthright citizenship. Short of congressional action, which is not forthcoming, SCOTUS will have to sort this out eventually. And in that sense, Donald Trump's EO does us a favor. I fear that SCOTUS will punt the matter back to Congress's doorstep.
Biden’s announcement that the ERA was now part of the constitution was simply bizarre. I’m sure he had no idea what he was talking about. Trump’s performance on birth right citizenship is a little different. I can’t imagine that he wasn’t told that the legal consensus is that birth right citizenship is enshrined in the constitution.So I think this was almost certainly a ploy to get the issue into court.
Axioms: rights come from laws of nature and nature's God.
Implies that rights are exogenously determined, so cannot be endogenously determined.
John Locke's 1690 2nd Treatise of Civil Government is generally considered foundational, although Sir Edward Coke did write the Petition of Right in 1628.
Replaces the pyramid structure of society with an inverted pyramid, so that the public decides and the public officials follow the public's preferences as ratified in the constitution.
Works very well. So well that political animal Chief Justice John Marshall assumed what he was trying to prove in 1803, using normative arguments in Federalist 78, to claim the judiciary should decide what Congressional acts are constitutional. False. There is no implied power of judicial review. Marbury v Madison was a tautology, and restating the constitution when there is no discretion as the legal question is a ministerial act, not a review.
Judicial review replaces constitutional law with case law, even when the majority opinions of justices are correct it is wrong John Marshall intended to legislate from the bench.
** Bill of Rights is now a Bill of Privileges and Immunities.
** No one is sure what the law is, there are always cases waiting for appellate judges to decide what the public intended in the constitution.
** All opinions, and that is all they are if not tautologies, must refer only to rights when deciding issues and never previous opinions, else judges act as an oligarchy, which Thomas Jefferson warned against.
Some legal scholars insist Article III implies judicial review, but if justices were to decide which cases to hear based on their decisions as to what is constitutional (they were on the circuit much of the time), that would allow bias. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were unconstitutional, and how that was resolved was the proper constitutional process.
The public would never allow people to sneak across the border to have a kid who automatically becomes a citizen. There were many more issues, such as willing to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and many of these people are the enemy. The US was founded and defended by Christians of European descent, and by analogy, it would be like sneaking into a castle, having a child, then claiming the child had a right to be in the castle. Ridiculous.
The public would not allow any government official to separate the social costs of their actions from their personal costs of those actions, yet that is exactly what Chief of Incompetence John Roberts and 5 other justices did in their POTUS immunity ruling.
Of course, there is no constitutional provision to protect judges from civil suit, that was a biased interpretation of the 7th Amendment as to what the common law would have prevented. Unfortunately, the rulings relied on common law from Sir Edward Coke when he was the head judge of the Privy Council, and so the US legal system acts like Britain's Starred Chamber. The Administration of Justice Act of 1774, as implemented, was more likely to hold judges accountable than the current system of faked judicial misconduct reviews, and that 1774 act was referred to as The Murder Act.
The Nazis promised a person a (fair) trial and then they would be shot; a procedure lacking in full substance.
Social equity measures the substance of procedures of due process.
Currently, law schools rely on heuristics, memorizing procedures and memorizing (wrong) opinions of justices, hoping to infer substantive due process.
I put this in the same category as liberals wanting to ban misinformation despite the first amendment. It might seem like it would feel good, make sense, and would do some good, but it would lead to ruin. I think the founders (post both of our homeland wars) were prescient with what they took out of public discourse. Executives that have the power to decide what is the truth is a pathway to tyranny. And an executive who could decide who gets to be a part of the people is equally perilous. The executive could decide that blacks or jews or muslims, or buddhists, or the left handed are no longer "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and BAM! not citizens anymore.
Even Trump's order which is theoretically more narrow would mean both Kamala Harris and Usha Vance would not be citizens today.
While I appreciate Adam's perspective, I'm not convinced that Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided. Also, his parents were lawful permanent residents, and that matters. I also wish you had included John Eastman's different perspective on the matter among your excellent list of clips. Reading much of the Senate debate on the 14th Amendment, it is clear to me that they would never have ascribed to what we recognize as birthright citizenship. Short of congressional action, which is not forthcoming, SCOTUS will have to sort this out eventually. And in that sense, Donald Trump's EO does us a favor. I fear that SCOTUS will punt the matter back to Congress's doorstep.
For those interested in Eastman's view, https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2741&context=lawreview. And I suspect you're right, this ends up back in Congress's lap.
Lawyers and legislators demonstrate how important being precise in your language is. But of course they are vague intentionally. Take care.
Biden’s announcement that the ERA was now part of the constitution was simply bizarre. I’m sure he had no idea what he was talking about. Trump’s performance on birth right citizenship is a little different. I can’t imagine that he wasn’t told that the legal consensus is that birth right citizenship is enshrined in the constitution.So I think this was almost certainly a ploy to get the issue into court.
Get well soon, Dany!
Wow. Ms. Pletka, what the hell is going on with Trump wanting to take over Gaza??? Wow. Talk about thinking BIG!
Axioms: rights come from laws of nature and nature's God.
Implies that rights are exogenously determined, so cannot be endogenously determined.
John Locke's 1690 2nd Treatise of Civil Government is generally considered foundational, although Sir Edward Coke did write the Petition of Right in 1628.
Replaces the pyramid structure of society with an inverted pyramid, so that the public decides and the public officials follow the public's preferences as ratified in the constitution.
Works very well. So well that political animal Chief Justice John Marshall assumed what he was trying to prove in 1803, using normative arguments in Federalist 78, to claim the judiciary should decide what Congressional acts are constitutional. False. There is no implied power of judicial review. Marbury v Madison was a tautology, and restating the constitution when there is no discretion as the legal question is a ministerial act, not a review.
Judicial review replaces constitutional law with case law, even when the majority opinions of justices are correct it is wrong John Marshall intended to legislate from the bench.
** Bill of Rights is now a Bill of Privileges and Immunities.
** No one is sure what the law is, there are always cases waiting for appellate judges to decide what the public intended in the constitution.
** All opinions, and that is all they are if not tautologies, must refer only to rights when deciding issues and never previous opinions, else judges act as an oligarchy, which Thomas Jefferson warned against.
Some legal scholars insist Article III implies judicial review, but if justices were to decide which cases to hear based on their decisions as to what is constitutional (they were on the circuit much of the time), that would allow bias. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were unconstitutional, and how that was resolved was the proper constitutional process.
The public would never allow people to sneak across the border to have a kid who automatically becomes a citizen. There were many more issues, such as willing to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and many of these people are the enemy. The US was founded and defended by Christians of European descent, and by analogy, it would be like sneaking into a castle, having a child, then claiming the child had a right to be in the castle. Ridiculous.
The public would not allow any government official to separate the social costs of their actions from their personal costs of those actions, yet that is exactly what Chief of Incompetence John Roberts and 5 other justices did in their POTUS immunity ruling.
Of course, there is no constitutional provision to protect judges from civil suit, that was a biased interpretation of the 7th Amendment as to what the common law would have prevented. Unfortunately, the rulings relied on common law from Sir Edward Coke when he was the head judge of the Privy Council, and so the US legal system acts like Britain's Starred Chamber. The Administration of Justice Act of 1774, as implemented, was more likely to hold judges accountable than the current system of faked judicial misconduct reviews, and that 1774 act was referred to as The Murder Act.
The Nazis promised a person a (fair) trial and then they would be shot; a procedure lacking in full substance.
Social equity measures the substance of procedures of due process.
Currently, law schools rely on heuristics, memorizing procedures and memorizing (wrong) opinions of justices, hoping to infer substantive due process.
Commonly understood does not equal fully adjudicated by SCOTUS…
I put this in the same category as liberals wanting to ban misinformation despite the first amendment. It might seem like it would feel good, make sense, and would do some good, but it would lead to ruin. I think the founders (post both of our homeland wars) were prescient with what they took out of public discourse. Executives that have the power to decide what is the truth is a pathway to tyranny. And an executive who could decide who gets to be a part of the people is equally perilous. The executive could decide that blacks or jews or muslims, or buddhists, or the left handed are no longer "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and BAM! not citizens anymore.
Even Trump's order which is theoretically more narrow would mean both Kamala Harris and Usha Vance would not be citizens today.