7 ms·
it’s a cut and dry constitutional amendment, it doesn’t matter if Thomas thinks the people that were in mind when it was drafted are not the same people it appl
by samiwami 22d ago
it’s a cut and dry constitutional amendment, it doesn’t matter if Thomas thinks the people that were in mind when it was drafted are not the same people it applies to now. if they want to change it, go ahead and get the states to ratify a new amendment.
Supreme Court doesn’t get to throw out an amendment because it’s old.
- enraged_camel 22d agoIt's also amusing that you won't ever hear conservatives like Thomas making the same argument when it comes to, say, the 2nd amendment.
- bradhe 22d agoI was just thinking the same thing lol. 2A is such a divisive topic.
- andrewla 21d agoYou also won't find Thomas making this argument for birthright citizenship because he didn't make that argument for birthright citizenship. The post you are replying to is incorrect, this was not his argument.
- knorker 22d agoIt was one vote away from going Thomas's way, so I wouldn't say it doesn't matter what he thinks. As a non-american, I would have enjoyed the precedent that the logical conclusion had to be that I would not be subject to the laws of the US, when visiting. The Thomas interpretation must logically have given diplomatic immunity to anyone on an ESTA too.
- padjo 22d agoThe funny thing is I bet ending birthright citizenship is an amendment that could actually be passed. You don't have to be a virulent racist to think the context has changed when you can get almost anywhere in the world in about 24 hours. (I'm not sure where I stand on it but I can at least see an argument for revisiting the question)
- buellerbueller 22d agopassed, over the objections of a majority of the country due to how states are gerrymandered and the specific rules for ratifying amendments.
- aveao 21d agoIf you're late enough in your pregnancy that giving birth during your vacation is realistic, you're likely to be refused boarding or turned back at the border. Birthright citizenship tourism is much smaller of an issue than stated.
- burnerRhodov3 21d agoIf what you say is true, why not end birthright citizenship? If what you say is false, why not end birthright citizenship?
- aveao 16d agoBecause US has no other form of becoming a citizen other than naturalization. Also frankly it's a bit silly when you are born to two residents of a country but don't become a citizen. Why does it matter what passports they hold if they live and work in america like american citizens? People being born on the same soil being given second class citizen treatment is pretty despicable imo.
- andrewla 22d agoI'm guessing that you did not actually read his dissent. Far from agreeing with the Trump administration; his view would effectively end birth tourism but preserve birthright citizenship (and maybe even stronger) for the children of non-citizens, legal or otherwise, who are domiciled in the US. As for it being cut and dry, do you earnestly believe that "and subject to its jurisdiction" is cut and dry? You might have your view, you might have some historical receipts for it, others have other views, and historical receipts, and others rely on common law readings. There's no single unambiguous interpretation of this phrase. Thomas's dissent is well reasoned and has ample historical antecedents and if adopted would have been the best possible interpretation.
- airstrike 22d agoSubject to its jurisdiction is pretty cleanly meant to mean paying taxes and obeying laws enforced upon them, which I concede could mean one is subject to multiple jurisdictions but it is not necessary to be subject to only one.