Welcome Guest

A SCOTUS ruling established birthright citizenship

Posted on: July 25, 2024 at 16:31:49 CT
Spanky KU
Posts:
141323
Member For:
20.24 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
It takes another SCOTUS ruling or a CA t change that


United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 interpreted the 14h Amendment to apply to anyone born in the US (other than a diplomat's child)

Prior to US v Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court's 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases decision contained the conclusion that "The [14th Amendment] phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States."

As with Dobbs overturning Roe v Wade, it just takes a new court to decide US v Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. The cleaner method is a Constitutional Amendment
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Ending Birthright Citizenship - haeffb MU - 7/25 15:59:56
     A SCOTUS ruling established birthright citizenship - Spanky KU - 7/25 16:31:49
     "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the part - Columbian Gold MU - 7/25 16:09:19
          how can the child of 2 persons literally not under the - 90Tiger STL - 7/25 16:40:30
     It would only take a proper interpretation of the - ummmm MU - 7/25 16:06:24
          Thanks, SCOTUS needs to overturn this and thus ending the - tigertix MU - 7/25 16:53:36
          Proper interpretation by whom? - haeffb MU - 7/25 16:23:32
               by anyone serious about the topic and not politically - 90Tiger STL - 7/25 16:38:07
                    Well, you and I can’t end it. - haeffb MU - 7/25 16:47:16
               A case would need to come before the court from someone - Spanky KU - 7/25 16:33:21
               By anyone trying to understand what the intent of - ummmm MU - 7/25 16:30:36
                    As I said... a case would need to come before the court to - Spanky KU - 7/25 17:20:58
                    Interesting discussion. My thanks to you and Spanky. - haeffb MU - 7/25 16:38:41
                         ...because of (in their view) an improper prior interpretati - 90Tiger STL - 7/25 16:39:35
                              Even if one agrees with the 1898 decision, there are only 2 - Spanky KU - 7/25 17:27:58
          that's a good post (nm) - Sal CMSU - 7/25 16:08:34




©2024 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard