The fact that this was even a case they heard indicates a failure of the system. The text of the amendment is unambiguous and unmisinterpretable. The fact that these four decided they should rule based on what they think the Constitution should say instead of what it literally says should be reason enough to have them removed from their positions.
Imagine a future Supreme Court deciding that the founding fathers would have wanted guns banned if they knew what modern weapons looked like, or that they meant to have the government endorse the Catholic church. Literal text of the document be damned, the Supreme Court rules based on what they want it to say. Tantamount to treason, and they ought to be tried as such.
Hold up there, while I agree that birthright citizenship is pretty clear cut, interpreting words is literally the essence of the law. The methodology is similar to all studies of the arts, be it theology, philosophy or the law. You argue and discuss your interpretation by looking at the system of the law, the history of when it was written and explanations to why it was written as well as what the writers intended for the law to mean. That naturally changes over the years
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. There is absolutely no room for interpreting these words. Children of illegal immigrants are subject to our jurisdiction, and are therefore citizens.
The fact that this was even a case they heard indicates a failure of the system. The text of the amendment is unambiguous and unmisinterpretable. The fact that these four decided they should rule based on what they think the Constitution should say instead of what it literally says should be reason enough to have them removed from their positions.
Imagine a future Supreme Court deciding that the founding fathers would have wanted guns banned if they knew what modern weapons looked like, or that they meant to have the government endorse the Catholic church. Literal text of the document be damned, the Supreme Court rules based on what they want it to say. Tantamount to treason, and they ought to be tried as such.
Hold up there, while I agree that birthright citizenship is pretty clear cut, interpreting words is literally the essence of the law. The methodology is similar to all studies of the arts, be it theology, philosophy or the law. You argue and discuss your interpretation by looking at the system of the law, the history of when it was written and explanations to why it was written as well as what the writers intended for the law to mean. That naturally changes over the years
Sure thing.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. There is absolutely no room for interpreting these words. Children of illegal immigrants are subject to our jurisdiction, and are therefore citizens.