Lindsey Graham: 'Birthright Citizenship Is A Mistake,' 'We Should Change Constitution

[erowe1]

Correction, what it meant to one guy who passed a law prior to the 14th amendment,

Correction. What it meant to several legislators in both the House and the Senate who passed not only that law a few months before the 14th Amendment (a law which does exactly what the 14th Amendment instructs Congress to do--enforces the 14th's provisions through appropriate legislation), and who were also involved in the passing of the 14th Amendment itself, as well as what it meant to state legislators who in the years subsequent to the passage of the 14th Amendment crafted their state laws about citizenship in attempts to conform them to what the 14th says and explicitly excluded children of transient aliens, as well as the U.S. Attorney General in 1870.

Either these individuals opinions were not representative of the legal thinking about the 14th at the time it was passed, in which case I can't see how you can say that "jurisdiction" means something that includes illegal migrants but not foreign diplomats, or their views were not representative, in which case you should have no difficulty finding examples of advocates of a view more like your own from that time, including, I would expect, people arguing against the claims made by the individuals cited in that article and objections raised against the state laws it cites.

 

[constituent]

Correction. What it meant to several legislators

Uhh no, maybe a few.

I believe the paper you linked only mentioned one or two.

Now, that said, what their feelings toward what the amendment should have said according to those guys vs. what the amendment actually says (that which was agreed upon by enough members to pass) are of interest only from a historical record standpoint.

NOt much use for actually interpreting THE ACTUAL WORDS of the amendment.

(a law which does exactly what the 14th Amendment instructs Congress to do--enforces the 14th's provisions through appropriate legislation),

Oh good, you've come to reason on this point and are ready to admit that Section 5 allows congress to pass laws ENFORCING the amendment rather than "define" the terms within it.

There is hope for you yet.

I can't see how you can say that "jurisdiction" means something that includes illegal migrants but not foreign diplomats,

One. More. Time. Sloooooowly.

D-I-P-L-O-M-A-T-I-C I-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y


Do you need me to repost the definition? I think that would make it four times? IIRC, they say it takes six times for it to stick... so maybe later.

or their views were not representative

Those couple of guys? Theirs views represent their views of what their ideal law would have said. But hell, they passed an unconstitutional law where an amendment was required. Perhaps you should take their ideas with a grain of salt.

Either way, their views do not change what the amendment ACTUALLY SAYS.

I would expect, people arguing against the claims made by the individuals cited in that article and objections raised against the state laws it cites.

At this point, I'm not sure who you are to be expecting anything.
You've been wrong for the last five pages.

The source that you cited still doesn't make your case. It only gave some background on a couple of opinions (and some historical context) concerning the Amendment. It did not, however, change what the amendment says.

I would expect that you would admit the error of your ways, adjust your position and move on. But I don't really care what you do.

Your dogmatic adherence to a number of invalid arguments makes all too obvious the fact that your primary motivation here is clearly not reason but rather ideology.

Thanks for playing though.

I've got some things to do before I can get back to agameofthrones, and won't be wasting my time piddling with you any further.

Enjoy your weekend.