seeing as congress did not amend the constitution after marbury to permit other branches to interpret the constitution, i find it very unlikely that the drafter's of the 14th intended for it to be interpreted by other branches, or the constitution generally. also wong kim ark decided this issue 127 years ago.

if you seriously think the court is going to overturn marbury and allow the executive and judicial branches to interpret the constitution separately you're insane. if anything they would just overturn wong kim ark. they're not going to overturn marbury you lunantic. obviously marbury is the correct interpretation of the judicial branch's role and the constitution drafters intent considering, you know, most of the drafters were alive in 1803 and the author john marshall pushed for virginia to ratify the constitution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2id.#48746911)

the only issue is that Cons are sociopaths and can do great levels of mental gymnastics to get their way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2id.#48746915)

But there aren’t great legal arguments against it unfortunately

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2id.#48746929)

wong kim ark already has various exceptions to birthright citizenship. i think if congress passed ordinary legislation declaring that illegal immigrants are considered enemies and their children are not entitled to birthright citizenship that SCOTUS was uphold that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2id.#48746952)

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5669150&mc=101&forum_id=2#48584764

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5669150&mc=101&forum_id=2#48594360

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5669150&mc=101&forum_id=2#48597854

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5669150&mc=101&forum_id=2#48631950

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2id.#48746975)

i don't like this outcome but it's clearly what the law demands and what the current composition of the court will go with.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2id.#48747015)

i do think it's possible and reasonable for the court include illegals under the foreign soldier exception. however i doubt it'll happen with the current composition. it would be penumbraing the 14th as the text and precedent pretty plainly supports birthright.

i wish the gop would just get rid of the filibuster and pass legislation. the real root of the issue, and most others, is that congress isn't functional, leaving us to rely on the executive and judicial branches to exercise powers they don't have.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2id.#48747152)

the big difference is that during that time illegal immigration and citizenship was less of an issue and also congress was more responsive in changing the law for modern issues. it's hard to think of a real judicial reason for SCOTUS to reverse course here if they are just supposed to be interpreting the law. nothing in the law has changed and if you're a textualist it's hard to ignore the plain language.

anyway, guess we'll see how it shakes out. i would certainly be happy with the policy of ending birthright. i just worry about opening pandora's box with our own version of penumbraing the constitution to get a result we want. otoh maybe i'm being a lost causer. after all, i think a lot of trump's EO shit is unconstitutional but i'm fine with that because at least he's elected and has a mandate from the people to do it. the people *do* want to eliminate BRC and it's a fucking stupid policy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2id.#48747454)

The categories referred to in the 14th amendment are of a completely different character than undocumented immigrants. The distinction is that those people (diplomats, foreign military advisors, Indians) were not subject to federal law and therefore could not enjoy the privilege of BRC. If that's the only limitation for BRC in the amendment, it's a stretch to say congress can legislate further limitations beyond those categories. This is especially true given the context of the drafting of the 14th am (preventing the South from determining blacks were not citizens). Cannot read exclusions into the clause given this context.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2id.#49496229)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2id.#49495129)