The words ‘Conservative’ and ‘Liberal’ are not as useful in understanding today’s political environment as they were in the 20th century. This ambiguity significantly increases the difficulty of understanding what is happening today.
It’s awkward that the terms ‘Liberal’ and ‘Liberalism’ share so many letters, but mean very different things. A huge number of people who sit on the political right of the 20th century understanding of the political spectrum are staunch believers in Liberal Democracy. Maybe we need to make greater use of the term ‘Liberalist’ to refer to people who believe in Liberal Democracy without making inferences about their left/right orientation.
And I hear you on not wanting to self identify as a ‘Conservative’. You stayed put, but the word moved away from you. Personally, I don’t use the term to describe the MAGA movement and its right wing parallels around the globe. They are Reactionary movements, characterized by a desire to change existing orders. They are Illiberal, meaning they are hostile to Liberal Democracy. Awkwardly, there is a growing Illiberal movement on the far left.
So I think my point is that many Conservatives are Liberals, and many Liberals are not. ;-)
In most countries, a liberal is somebody who believes in democracy and universal rights, regardless of being a conservative or a progressive. "Liberal" is the opposite of "authoritarian", "illiberal".
My approach is to stop using the words ‘Conservative’ and ‘Liberal’ as we understood and applied them in the last century. They just don’t apply as well as they did.
“[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. .
1.) Any living human being physically in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States.
2.) People who are "born or naturalized"... are citizens.
3.) The dissenting opinions relied upon redefining "jurisdiction" or upon Congress having enabling powers that include redefining citizenship itself.
4.) The notion that an Executive Order can change the law, without Congress, let alone override the Constitution, is absurd on its face. The Supreme Court should have simply rejected Trump's appeal and let the lower appellate court's ruling stand until another appellate court agreed with Trump creating a diversity of opinions upon which the Supreme Court would have to decide was Constitutional.
The dissenting opinions in this case would not even withstand the scrutiny of a constitutional law school professor unless they were being judged for the novelty of their arguments.
or maybe they decided not to be originalists after all. I mean, why should they be? so their side can keep losing with dignity to the "living constitutionalists"?
The article didn’t dig as deeply into Originalism as implied by the headline, but the observation that self-described Originalists are making substantive decisions that are inconsistent with that philosophy is relevant.
While there are Originalist purists who sincerely believe in this concept, it’s becoming increasingly easy to recognize Constitutional Originalism as a temporary rhetorical expedient that its own proponents abandoned.
If one of those five votes dies on Trump's watch, then that part of the 14th Amendment will be voided. The law is whatever the authoritarian Republican justices want it to be and think they can get away with without too much backlash. Roberts only saved it because his strategy is to boil the democracy frog relatively slowly. He knows if he pushes too far, too fast, he will wake up too many people before it's too late and their votes no longer matter. So, he's careful, throws the occasional bone, takes four terrible steps forward, but then one back, knowing how stunningly easy it is to fool so many this way, into thinking, see, he's unbiased and democracy is safe.
Oh, balls. You're ignorant of the debates re. the phrase 'under the jurisdiction thereof' and the words of the writers of the 14th Amendment or you're repressing that to fit your narrative. Their words were crystal clear...the 14th was NOT written to make citizens of children of foreign national visitors and especially not of illegal alien squatters on our soil. No sane nation uses jus soli as a basis for citizenship. We are committing suicide and I hope the Republicans can come up with the stonal concensus to pass the SAVE act today and ultimately to repair the 14th Amendment to properly define 'under the jurisdiction thereof'. If there is a failing in the Constitution, it is the fact that they did not properly define words and terms in simple, clear English. "keep arms", "common defense" and "general welfare" are other examples.
“[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. .
The text is clear--- any living person is under the jurisdiction of the United States if they are physically present in the United States. If the writers of the 14th Amendment had intended to exclude the children of casual visitors or squatters they should have said so.
I am pretty much in favor of eliminating birth citizenship but it has to be done by the normal Constitutional order of a constitutional amendment.
Certainly not by an executive order that Trump farts out of his ass.
That is not the way the writers of the amendment understood the phrase as their debates make clear. Try reading beyond the amendment itself to understand original intent.
Trump's EO accomplished its mission...it put the question directly before the people and the SCOTUS. After arguing for decades that Obama is a usurper, I'm really glad to have the question out in the open.
"Original Intent" is possible to determine through the debate prior to passage of the amendment.
In 1866 the only requirement in law for naturalization was that one was white, of good moral character as attested by other citizens, and rejecting allegiance to any other government. Otherwise if one was born here one was a citizen regardless of the status of one's parents. My Swedish great grandfather was not naturalized until long after most of his children were born who were citizens at birth. His sister came with the rest of the family but returned to Sweden so she, her husband and two of her children were Swedish citizens and the remaining children were all US citizens. Eventually some of those children returned to the US and, obviously were readmitted as US Citizens.
The working assumption in 1866 was that if you were born here you are a citizen regardless of parentage. The 14th makes it explicit with regard to black people as well. The intention of the amendment was to establish that formerly enslaved people were in fact citizens and not to cast aside the traditional understanding that anyone born here was a citizen.
The intention of the amendment was also to extend the Bill of Rights to all citizens and persons residing in any state. No one contradicted that stated intention of the Congressional authors of the amendment (Rep. John A. Bingham of Ohio and Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan) and though the Supreme Court took a less expansive view of the amendment for many years (allowing Jim Crow laws to have their way) eventually the Supreme Court came to accept the original intent of the law by the time of "Brown v. Board of Education."
It seems our SCOTUS is headed back to a less expansive interpretation.
I know i'm making a second comment but, back when I was a conservative, I could never think that someone born here would be denied citizenship.
There's the problem. You were a conservative, not a rabid racist in conservative clothing.
The distinction that we sadly have to make these days
The words ‘Conservative’ and ‘Liberal’ are not as useful in understanding today’s political environment as they were in the 20th century. This ambiguity significantly increases the difficulty of understanding what is happening today.
It’s awkward that the terms ‘Liberal’ and ‘Liberalism’ share so many letters, but mean very different things. A huge number of people who sit on the political right of the 20th century understanding of the political spectrum are staunch believers in Liberal Democracy. Maybe we need to make greater use of the term ‘Liberalist’ to refer to people who believe in Liberal Democracy without making inferences about their left/right orientation.
And I hear you on not wanting to self identify as a ‘Conservative’. You stayed put, but the word moved away from you. Personally, I don’t use the term to describe the MAGA movement and its right wing parallels around the globe. They are Reactionary movements, characterized by a desire to change existing orders. They are Illiberal, meaning they are hostile to Liberal Democracy. Awkwardly, there is a growing Illiberal movement on the far left.
So I think my point is that many Conservatives are Liberals, and many Liberals are not. ;-)
That is a famous quirk of US vocabulary.
In most countries, a liberal is somebody who believes in democracy and universal rights, regardless of being a conservative or a progressive. "Liberal" is the opposite of "authoritarian", "illiberal".
Only US uses "liberal" to mean "left wing".
Still! Things are not exactly looking good
This supreme court has me absolutely rattled. It's absolutely terrifying
Me too. On the one hand it is 'original intent' and on the other it is 'current social opinion'. Consistent it is not and that is politically driven.
It buggles me to why any conservative would harm the constitution in this way. It scares me to my core that this was a close decision.
And it's very clear that trump is awful. He ended a road to citizenship through military service.
My approach is to stop using the words ‘Conservative’ and ‘Liberal’ as we understood and applied them in the last century. They just don’t apply as well as they did.
see my longer response on this to Doingmybest
Thank you! This is the best takedown and explanation for what every rational person understands INTUITIVELY about US Citizenship!
And then the constitution explicitly says that if someone is born here, then they are a citizen.
“[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. .
1.) Any living human being physically in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States.
2.) People who are "born or naturalized"... are citizens.
3.) The dissenting opinions relied upon redefining "jurisdiction" or upon Congress having enabling powers that include redefining citizenship itself.
4.) The notion that an Executive Order can change the law, without Congress, let alone override the Constitution, is absurd on its face. The Supreme Court should have simply rejected Trump's appeal and let the lower appellate court's ruling stand until another appellate court agreed with Trump creating a diversity of opinions upon which the Supreme Court would have to decide was Constitutional.
The dissenting opinions in this case would not even withstand the scrutiny of a constitutional law school professor unless they were being judged for the novelty of their arguments.
A nitpick on Point 1, where your analysis is not fully correct.
Diplomats or invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, hence the exception in the text.
Good net pack, but that doesn't seem relevant to the affair here
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is often interpreted to be five words.
Good point :) We'll fix.
Yes, as the writers of the 14th made perfectly clear. Damn shame they left out that 5th word. That failure might be fatal for the country.
Hah, whoops! They do say that lawyers are bad at math...
WROTE AN ARTICLE ON YOUR TOPIC-Bhright Citizenship Controversy: A Study of Conservative
Substance and Rhetoric, Allen Kamp, EMERITUS, U ILL CHICAGO LAW
I WROTE AN ARTICLE ON YOUR TOPIC-Bhright Citizenship Controversy: A Study of Conservative
Substance and Rhetoric, Allen Kamp, EMERITUS, U ILL CHICAGO LAW
There is also no biblical-literalist justification for expelling "the stranger," yet conservative evangelicals have no problem with it.
LOL! No but there is plenty of justification for genociding them--- I think that is the direction that Christian Nationalists are headed.
maybe they found emanations and penumbras.
or maybe they decided not to be originalists after all. I mean, why should they be? so their side can keep losing with dignity to the "living constitutionalists"?
The article didn’t dig as deeply into Originalism as implied by the headline, but the observation that self-described Originalists are making substantive decisions that are inconsistent with that philosophy is relevant.
While there are Originalist purists who sincerely believe in this concept, it’s becoming increasingly easy to recognize Constitutional Originalism as a temporary rhetorical expedient that its own proponents abandoned.
Not in all cases and it is a shame that some are backing away from it in this case. This is national suicide
https://theunpopulist.substack.com/p/there-is-no-originalist-rationale?r=e6x1o&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=287033069
If one of those five votes dies on Trump's watch, then that part of the 14th Amendment will be voided. The law is whatever the authoritarian Republican justices want it to be and think they can get away with without too much backlash. Roberts only saved it because his strategy is to boil the democracy frog relatively slowly. He knows if he pushes too far, too fast, he will wake up too many people before it's too late and their votes no longer matter. So, he's careful, throws the occasional bone, takes four terrible steps forward, but then one back, knowing how stunningly easy it is to fool so many this way, into thinking, see, he's unbiased and democracy is safe.
Oh, balls. You're ignorant of the debates re. the phrase 'under the jurisdiction thereof' and the words of the writers of the 14th Amendment or you're repressing that to fit your narrative. Their words were crystal clear...the 14th was NOT written to make citizens of children of foreign national visitors and especially not of illegal alien squatters on our soil. No sane nation uses jus soli as a basis for citizenship. We are committing suicide and I hope the Republicans can come up with the stonal concensus to pass the SAVE act today and ultimately to repair the 14th Amendment to properly define 'under the jurisdiction thereof'. If there is a failing in the Constitution, it is the fact that they did not properly define words and terms in simple, clear English. "keep arms", "common defense" and "general welfare" are other examples.
Yes, the Amendment is crystal clear:
“[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. .
The text is clear--- any living person is under the jurisdiction of the United States if they are physically present in the United States. If the writers of the 14th Amendment had intended to exclude the children of casual visitors or squatters they should have said so.
I am pretty much in favor of eliminating birth citizenship but it has to be done by the normal Constitutional order of a constitutional amendment.
Certainly not by an executive order that Trump farts out of his ass.
That is not the way the writers of the amendment understood the phrase as their debates make clear. Try reading beyond the amendment itself to understand original intent.
Trump's EO accomplished its mission...it put the question directly before the people and the SCOTUS. After arguing for decades that Obama is a usurper, I'm really glad to have the question out in the open.
"Original Intent" is possible to determine through the debate prior to passage of the amendment.
In 1866 the only requirement in law for naturalization was that one was white, of good moral character as attested by other citizens, and rejecting allegiance to any other government. Otherwise if one was born here one was a citizen regardless of the status of one's parents. My Swedish great grandfather was not naturalized until long after most of his children were born who were citizens at birth. His sister came with the rest of the family but returned to Sweden so she, her husband and two of her children were Swedish citizens and the remaining children were all US citizens. Eventually some of those children returned to the US and, obviously were readmitted as US Citizens.
The working assumption in 1866 was that if you were born here you are a citizen regardless of parentage. The 14th makes it explicit with regard to black people as well. The intention of the amendment was to establish that formerly enslaved people were in fact citizens and not to cast aside the traditional understanding that anyone born here was a citizen.
The intention of the amendment was also to extend the Bill of Rights to all citizens and persons residing in any state. No one contradicted that stated intention of the Congressional authors of the amendment (Rep. John A. Bingham of Ohio and Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan) and though the Supreme Court took a less expansive view of the amendment for many years (allowing Jim Crow laws to have their way) eventually the Supreme Court came to accept the original intent of the law by the time of "Brown v. Board of Education."
It seems our SCOTUS is headed back to a less expansive interpretation.
https://theunpopulist.substack.com/p/there-is-no-originalist-rationale?r=e6x1o&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=287033069