It doesn't matter if they are Jesuits,or Thomas Jefferson and George Washington brought back to life,if Trump recommended them,you would hate them and find fault.
Yup.
Hondo has been sporting his pink p***y hats and "I'M WITH ---> HER!" button loud and proud.
IF they reject him (as I expect), the NEXT picks will only be further RIGHT.
Rejecting Kavanaugh risks the next nominee facing a Dem majority in the Senate, or a slimmer GOP majority. If that happens, Trump could nominate conservatives until he leaves office and not get anyone approved.
There are currently 51 GOP, 47 Dem, 2 Ind (caucus with Dem).
At least 3 Dem senators are runnning for reelection in states that Trump won by 20 to 40 points. The liklihood is that Kavanaugh gets narrow Senate approval.
If post-election the GOP retains 50 or more Senate seats (likely), then the next nominee for an opening could well be Barrett, Hardiman, Kethledge, or Thapar.
It is very possible Trump gets to name a successor for Ginsburg or Sotomayor, and possibly Thomas at 70+ could resign to ensure a young, conservative replacement.
I did not offer an opinion. I quoted Kavanaugh verbatim from Heller II at the D.C. Circuit Court. Here is the full Opinion of the Court and dissents. The Kavanaugh dissent starts at page 46 of the pdf.
Catholicism isn't a slave cult. It's the largest human organization, the oldest continuous government on earth, and the source of Western civilization.
The Scofield prots have been beaten down, and they're loving it.
Catholics don't even know what "Scofield Prots" are. We simply have our set of interests and beliefs, and we want to see them enacted as the law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less.
We know, given that we're a minority, that we cannot get our way on everything, so we compromise as necessary in order to get, in the main, what it is that we most care about.
This isn't different from any other political grouping, like yours for instance.
Per the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Wanting to see my moral beliefs become the law of the land is not levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies.
So, your accusation of treason is un-American. You want to shoot me because you don't agree with my politics. That's not American at all. But hey, you do you.
At least 3 Dem senators are runnning for reelection in states that Trump won by 20 to 40 points. The liklihood is that Kavanaugh gets narrow Senate approval.
I think there are 9 or 10 total in states Trump won.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
any other political grouping, like yours for instance
Who is "we", you and your reincarnated lizard? You're right about being a minority. You don't speak for the Church. That's a joy and a blessing for Catholics worldwide.
Many Catholics are aware of the Scofield denominations, aka prot nutjobs or rapture monkey zionists. Like your Catholic political group, they're a small subset of a greater traditional Protestant reformation.
Renowned Catholic theologian Fred Mertz might be able to confirm that you're a fringe k0oK Catholic?
But as far as the laws of the country goes, they're not perfect, but much of the structure we have is what I want to see. I'd like it to be more efficient, less ragged around the edges, less slapdash, but the fundamental structures that are in place are very much in keeping with what I want - and utterly the opposite of what you want.
So it would seem that, for whatever reason, the majority will of the country does largely (if imperfectly) provide me what I want, while it deprives you of what you want at every turn.
Eventually, the likes of you either have to compromise with people like me, to get something of what you want at least considered, or you refuse to compromise or talk, and just get plowed under, get nothing you want, but pay your taxes nevertheless.
Not much margin for you in this, but I'm fine with it all.
For clarity, by hoping you were "right" I hoped the letter of constitutional intent will be THE criteria for all future decisions (instead of emotional whims, a squishy Anthony Kennedy "moderate" clone, or intimidation/influence by Leftist thought.)
If so, frankly you betray Jesus Christ in a number of ways.
Pope Frankie is so clearly a Trojan Horse Communist, anti-liberty, and importantly, defiant of Christ-ian thought and rationale and intent that supporting this Pope boggles the mind.
Would Jesus Christ kiss the Koran? Support a counterfeit Palestinian instead of Israel? Advocate homosexual behavior -- much less "marriage"? Support the confiscation of one's toiled-over earned wealth?
But he's cornered the Dems by doing so. IF they reject him (as I expect), the NEXT picks will only be further RIGHT.
Correct... Trump ain’t no dummy.
I liked the other choice better (he was a duplicate of Gorsuch)... but I’ll take every judge chosen by Trump over any pick Kuntlary and Commie Sanders would have picked.
We don’t need any more man hating, gun loathing, tree hugging rug munchers on the bench.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
For clarity, by hoping you were "right" I hoped the letter of constitutional intent will be THE criteria for all future decisions (instead of emotional whims, a squishy Anthony Kennedy "moderate" clone, or intimidation/influence by Leftist thought.)
Just for the record, I am not a grand supporter of original intent, but rather original meaning (Scalia was a proponent of this predominant branch of originalism).
What “originalism” is—and is not — Originalism, explains Scalia, is a “manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people.” He clarifies that this is not synonymous with “strict constructionism”: “I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably.”
Scalia also rejected the notion of “original intent.” As he explained,
You will sometimes hear [originalism] described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.
I do the same with statutes, by the way, which is why I don't use legislative history. The words are the law. I think that's what is meant by a government of laws, not of men. We are bound not by the intent of our legislators, but by the laws which they enacted, laws which are set forth in words, of course.
What substantive due process is is quite simple — the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee. But the Court said, and this goes way back, in the 1920s at least, in fact the first case to do it was Dred Scott. But it became more popular in the 1920s. The Court said there are some liberties that are so important, that no process will suffice to take them away. Hence, substantive due process.
Now, what liberties are they? The Court will tell you. Be patient. When the doctrine of substantive due process was initially announced, it was limited in this way, the Court said it embraces only those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people.
Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people. It is up to the Court to say what is covered by substantive due process.
What are the arguments usually made in favor of the Living Constitution? As the name of it suggests, it is a very attractive philosophy, and it’s hard to talk people out of it — the notion that the Constitution grows. The major argument is the Constitution is a living organism, it has to grow with the society that it governs or it will become brittle and snap.
This is the equivalent of, an anthropomorphism equivalent to what you hear from your stockbroker, when he tells you that the stock market is resting for an assault on the 11,000 level. The stock market panting at some base camp. The stock market is not a mountain climber and the Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake; it’s a legal document, and like all legal documents, it says some things, and it doesn’t say other things. And if you think that the aficionados of the Living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again.
My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea — persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea — persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion — create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and enact it. You want the opposite — persuade them the other way. That’s flexibility. But to read either result into the Constitution is not to produce flexibility, it is to produce what a constitution is designed to produce — rigidity. Abortion, for example, is offstage, it is off the democratic stage, it is no use debating it, it is unconstitutional. I mean prohibiting it is unconstitutional; I mean it’s no use debating it anymore — now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the Constitution, which is a difficult thing. So, for whatever reason you might like the Living Constitution, don’t like it because it provides flexibility.
As the Constitution says not a word about abortion, I believe five originalists on SCOTUS might overturn Roe finding a lack of federal jurisdiction, and return the issue to the states. Many here would not be happy with that result. They not only want the court to find that abortion is not constitutionally protected by an emanation from a penumbra, but they want the Court to find that abortion is prohibited by some constitutional provision emanating from a penumbra.
It is of no particular use to go back and find a 200 year old quote as to what some Framer may have intended. Nobody voted to ratify his intent. They voted to ratify the words themselves and the ordinary understanding of the words.
An example might be the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, "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." The words are clear enough to include anchor babies. The baby (regardless of the parents) is born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction (laws) of the U.S. Whether the framer did, or did not, consider the question of anchor babies has no effect on the meaning of the words that were adopted. If it had an unintended consequence, amend it.
If so, frankly you betray Jesus Christ in a number of ways.
Not in the slightest degree. We disagree at the most fundamental levels. You listed a litany of political issues, and you believe God to align with your political priorities. Nothing is going to persuade you otherwise, not even a lifetime of defeat. You expect that, opening your eyes after death, you will be vindicated. I expect the same thing for myself.
It would appear that there is no meeting of the minds on these things.
The interesting thing is that you see the Pope and the Church and Catholics believing and doing one set of things, but I see him and us believing and doing very different things.
So there's a disagreement both as to law and as to facts.
Doesn't seem to be any way to resolve it, so I guess we will just have to see how the game plays out.
As usual,you "got" nothing but bats flying around in your belfry.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Catholicism isn't a slave cult. It's the largest human organization, the oldest continuous government on earth, and the source of Western civilization.
HorseHillary!
On all counts.
The only reason you can't see that it's a cult is that you are a cult member.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
That is not Catholic be!ief.... Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason...
Which is PRECISELY why the FF'ers made sure there would be no official religion in America.
History is full of examples of what happens when that happens.
As for Catholic Rule,seems to me there was a minor little war over Catholic control of the known world,called "The Reformation". Led by one of the greatest heroes of recorded history,Martin Luther.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
We don’t need any more man hating, gun loathing, tree hugging rug munchers on the bench.
HA! On the bench. Off the bench. Anywhere NEAR us. They belong in top-floor sanitariums.
I've posted articles and written about this; WOMEN IN POWER ARE DANGEROUS TO FREEDOM. Whether Europe or the USA. Most of these broads have yuge chips on their shoulders. Maybe GI or Liberator blew them off because we didn't want to tolerate their insanity.
Witchy ideologues are already polluting SCOTUS and the country! I am SICK of PC picks, AA, and "evening" things out. Sick of it. Trump. Must. Pick. THE BEST PERSON. PERIOD.
So yeah -- I just don't trust the ideology of last 30 years women who chose being a lawyer as a life-vocation. Or on the Supreme Court. Why would you or I trust a woman who puts the priority of being a high-powered lawyer ahead of being creative, but prioritizing being a wife, wanting to raise a family? It's just weird. I mean that's what it come down to, doesn't it?
Yes, we know there are exceptions. BUT from a conservative woman it's just generally NOT Priority One.
THE noble cause for OUR types of women is...nurturing. And being smart, compassionate and loyal.
For Dem women it's generally all about...A CRUSADE, a way to extract some kind of revenge. GENERALLY ON MEN. (Or their war on the so-called "patriarchy.") Or because they are crusaders yeah -- for Mutha-Earth or.... cats. I've met enough of these broads. Their causes are ALWAYS pathological. And the older they get, the more bitter. (One theory is that they were rejected as ugly from THE INSIDE. And don't even want to try to be attractive on the OUTSIDE.)
I’ll take every judge chosen by Trump over any pick Kuntlary and Commie Sanders would have picked.
Ab-so-lutely. (Tell me again why some people supposedly on our side don't think the election of Trump helped SAVE THE REPUBLIC??)
Witchy ideologues are already polluting SCOTUS and the country! I am SICK of PC picks, AA, and "evening" things out. Sick of it. Trump. Must. Pick. THE BEST PERSON. PERIOD.
Spot on...
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
That is not Catholic be!ief.... Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason... Which is PRECISELY why the FF'ers made sure there would be no official religion in America.
History is full of examples of what happens when that happens.
As for Catholic Rule,seems to me there was a minor little war over Catholic control of the known world,called "The Reformation". Led by one of the greatest heroes of recorded history,Martin Luther.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal.
I waaant those enactrd into law and tpainee hates the declaration of Independence and the constitution.
Ever tried to explain this to people with no money and hungry children?
Dont even TRY to claim that organized religion feeds the poor. They only feed the poor if PAID to feed the poor by both the government and tax-free contributions,and even then they usually demand you play the role of a dancing monkey and join them in prayer.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Just for the record, I am not a grand supporter of original intent, but rather original meaning (Scalia was a proponent of this predominant branch of originalism).
Ok, I'll accept that technical definition/criteria. To me the context of "intent" would be the same as "meaning".
A bunch is explained and clarified here. Thank you...
I appreciate Justice Scalia's efforts and honesty here in trying to teach all who are or who *should* be interested into the factors a process (as HE sees it) that's worth learning/understanding.
Scalia also rejected the notion of “original intent.” As he explained, "You will sometimes hear [originalism] described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words."
It *may* be construed by *some* as "secret" these days. But to some of us the context or meaning seems obvious.
It's jurists like Scalia who may see "secrets"; then again he's is/was a RCC or Jesuit. THEY on the otherhand DO often deal in secrets.
(Scalia cont.) "I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.
I do the same with statutes, by the way, which is why I don't use legislative history. The words are the law. I think that's what is meant by a government of laws, not of men. We are bound not by the intent of our legislators, but by the laws which they enacted, laws which are set forth in words, of course.
Well frankly, Scalia sound a bit naive here. "Words" are NOT just "words" in the late 20th-21st century; They've been manipulated by ideological wordsmiths to magically have become ambiguous OR "dangerous" (as we have seen.)
What substantive due process is is quite simple — the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law.
Scalia: The man is the Yoda of SC Justices. Even if I don't fully agree with him. Being an "Originalist" required understanding the text...AT THE TIME. And in CONTEXT. It is absolutely crucial to know the Founders were indeed assuming certain judicial perspectives in projecting future cases.
You helped make this as easy as possible. (Yes I know -- it's Scalia.)
So there's Intent. Original Intent. Textual-ism. Definitions of phrase and meaning "bore by the people" (at the time"). Context of words AND meaning (again, for the time). Then the weight of the literal words of the Founders as well as contemporary Justices to consider.
Scalia does tend to split hairs, which I suppose we *should* expect from any bench -- but especially from SCOTUS. Scalia and the conservatives generally DO a much more thorough job of examining and analyzing text and intent. WITH as much respect of the Founders' principles as possible. AND doing so with a great degree of honesty and respect for the REAL "process".
The Left? Do any of them come close to Scalia in considering a proper measure of the factors and respecting process to any remote degree? As pure Ideologues they are judicial frauds, thieves of the Founders' Intent AND Text AND Reason.
But here Scalia himself trips and falls into a trap:
"It is of no particular use to go back and find a 200 year old quote as to what some Framer may have intended. Nobody voted to ratify his intent. They voted to ratify the words themselves and the ordinary understanding of the words."
HUH?? Scalia dismisses "INTENT" itself?? We're talking the FOUNDATION of the Constitution itself. It's like dismissing or removing Genesis from the Bible. You can do it but it severely weakens the rest of intellectual structure.
And again, for all of Scalia's brilliance and integrity he completely shanks this explanation and intent of the 14A:
"An example might be the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, "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."
The words are clear enough to include anchor babies. The baby (regardless of the parents) is born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction (laws) of the U.S. Whether the framer did, or did not, consider the question of anchor babies has no effect on the meaning of the words that were adopted. If it had an unintended consequence, amend it."
And yes, THIS is exactly why "INTENT" is so crucial and TEXT (which Scalia favored) should carry LESS weight. FAR less weight. PROOF? By technicality, the text Scalia prioritizes to make Court decisions and mis-intent of the Framer's 14A anchor-baby clause (that had NOT considered our reptilian future of ACLU-type saboteurs of the USCON) is what's about to destroy the Republic.
Those Founders or Court also obviously overlooked the original illegal trespassing which created the "anchor-baby" theft-by-extension of US sovereignty. But then they never imagined by NOT dotting "i"s and NOT crossing "t"s ACLU-types would marry the Scalias with the ACLU.
The Framers of this law clearly (to many of us) did NOT intend for this theft-by-deception or "accidental" citizenry to become THE RULE. Their INTENT was that it would be a compassionate EXCEPTION. Funny how the Left are able to exploit Literalism along with a "Living, breathing Constitution". Heads The Left wins; Tails the Republic loses.
With all due respect to Scalia, his opinion on this issue is dead wrong. I presume he (like some Liberals) projected emotion into his opinion. As an Italian decedent/immigrant whose relatives babies became "Instant Citizens" as a result, his Mexican Border scenario is a gross abuse of this kind of "Anchor" situation.
WORDS/TEXT in the 18th and 19th century are often as much as 180 degree away from 21st century INTENT. Exhibit "A": "GAY"
Figuratively speaking, you can not legislate human morality unless there is adequate capacity in society to ensure that human suffering is minimized. The USA meets this threshold. Most nations do not.
Renowned Catholic theologian Fred Mertz might be able to confirm that you're a fringe k0oK Catholic?
Yes, I can confirm that.
I try to live by the golden rule and the ten commandments. I try pretty hard, although I'm human. That means I get laid on occasion and I guess that's a sin.
It is absolutely crucial to know the Founders were indeed assuming certain judicial perspectives in projecting future cases.
I disagree and hold the framers intent irrelevant. The Constitution and Amendments were not acts of the legislature or legislators. They are acts of, and ratified by, the people or the political communities known as states. They are not acts of the Federal government but acts of the people acting in their sovereign capacity. The only relevant meaning was the plain meaning of the words as understood by the ratifiers. Nobody ratified what the framers may have assumed but did not put in the words presented to the ratifiers.
But here Scalia himself trips and falls into a trap:
"It is of no particular use to go back and find a 200 year old quote as to what some Framer may have intended. Nobody voted to ratify his intent. They voted to ratify the words themselves and the ordinary understanding of the words."
That is all me, not Scalia. What a Framer may have intended, but did not put in the plain words presented to the ratifiers, was not ratified by anyone, and is irrelevant.
LIKE INTERPRETING THE DREAMS OF PHARAOH Date: November 6, 1988, Sunday, Late City Final Edition Section 7; Page 11, Column 1; Book Review Desk Byline: By ANTHONY LEWIS; Anthony Lewis is a columnist for The New York Times. Lead: LEAD: ORIGINAL INTENT AND THE FRAMERS' CONSTITUTION By Leonard W. Levy. 525 pp. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. $19.95.
[excerpt]
The convention met in closed sessions. No stenographic record was kept, though one easily could have been. The only substantial notes were kept by Madison, and he never made any reference to them in all the hot arguments about the meaning of the Constitution during the early years of the Republic. In the first Congress, which included many delegates to the convention, no one tried to prove a point by mentioning what had been said there. And Madison did not allow his notes to be published until after his death, half a century after the convention.
Even if the delegates had wanted their intentions to be binding, discovering them is next to impossible. Madison's notes are often sketchy. Many delegates to the convention said little, and 16 of the 55 did not sign the Constitution.
Nor was there one intent on the issues that now concern us. As in any such convocation, the delegates saw different meanings in the words on which they finally agreed. Some of the disagreements soon surfaced. Hamilton thought the Constitution gave Congress power to charter a bank. Madison thought not - but later changed his mind!
Moreover, a true reading of ''original intent'' would have to include the minds of the different men who voted to approve the Constitution, the members of the ratifying conventions that met in each state. The record of those assemblies ranges from corrupt to nonexistent. It is impossible to say what their understanding was.
The legislative history of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments - on which so many legal disputes are focused now - is even scantier. There is virtually no record of what individual members of Congress thought or said in proposing the Amendments in 1789. Mr. Levy is particularly interesting on the rather cynical politics of the Bill of Rights.
''Just what our forefathers did envision,'' Justice Robert H. Jackson said, ''or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh.''
In brief summary, those are some of the reasons why original intention cannot be a neat solution to the problem of expounding our Constitution - and living under it. But no summary can do justice to the richness of Mr. Levy's scholarship, or its zest.
- - - - - - - - - -
And again, for all of Scalia's brilliance and integrity he completely shanks this explanation and intent of the 14A:
"An example might be the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, "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."
The words are clear enough to include anchor babies. The baby (regardless of the parents) is born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction (laws) of the U.S. Whether the framer did, or did not, consider the question of anchor babies has no effect on the meaning of the words that were adopted. If it had an unintended consequence, amend it."
Again, that is not Scalia. That is all me. And the words of 14A clearly and unambiguously say that all persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the U.S.
ALL babies born in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., are natural born U.S. citizens. This is so without reference to the citizenship or status of the parents.
The exception to citizenship is children born in the U.S. who are not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. Those are the children of accredited diplomats or visiting royalty. The child of an accredited ambassador would have diplomatic immunity from U.S. law.
And yes, THIS is exactly why "INTENT" is so crucial and TEXT (which Scalia favored) should carry LESS weight. FAR less weight. PROOF? By technicality, the text Scalia prioritizes to make Court decisions and mis-intent of the Framer's 14A anchor-baby clause (that had NOT considered our reptilian future of ACLU-type saboteurs of the USCON) is what's about to destroy the Republic.
You are quite mistaken about the 14A framers' intent. The 14A debates explicitly acknowledged that the children of Chinese and European aliens fell within the clause. There was debate about Indian tribes and whether or not they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Those Founders or Court also obviously overlooked the original illegal trespassing which created the "anchor-baby" theft-by-extension of US sovereignty. But then they never imagined by NOT dotting "i"s and NOT crossing "t"s ACLU-types would marry the Scalias with the ACLU.
The Framers of this law clearly (to many of us) did NOT intend for this theft-by-deception or "accidental" citizenry to become THE RULE. Their INTENT was that it would be a compassionate EXCEPTION. Funny how the Left are able to exploit Literalism along with a "Living, breathing Constitution". Heads The Left wins; Tails the Republic loses.
With all due respect to Scalia, his opinion on this issue is dead wrong. I presume he (like some Liberals) projected emotion into his opinion. As an Italian decedent/immigrant whose relatives babies became "Instant Citizens" as a result, his Mexican Border scenario is a gross abuse of this kind of "Anchor" situation.
Again, this is mine and not Scalia.
It is absolutely correct that if two alien parents, both of whom are in a detention center, have a baby in the United States, that baby meets the conditions of 14A and is a natural born U.S. citizen. See U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, Volume 7, 7 FAM 1100, linked and quoted below. If that is not desired, then an amendment is needed to change it.
My anchor baby scenario is not a gross abuse of anything. It is, and has long been, a legal fact. The 14A framers were post-Civil War legislators who were actively encouraging immigration. They had Indian territory to conquer. This was done by removing the Indian population and replacing it. They needed the replacements.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
7 FAM 1110 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
[...]
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization.
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
(3) “Blue List” Cases – Children of Foreign Diplomats: 7 FAM
1100 Appendix J (under development) provides extensive guidance on the issue of children born in the United States to parents serving as foreign diplomats, consuls, or administrative and technical staff accredited to the United States, the United Nations, and specific international organizations, and whether such children are born “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and....
(d) a person born outside of the United States and....
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States....
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Far from overlooking children born of aliens, there is a chain of cases, especially pertaining to Chinese aliens not eligible for naturalization.
In re Look Tin Sing, Fed. Rep. 905, 906 (1884), Justice Field
The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that "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." This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents. Persons born on a public vessel of a foreign country, while within the waters of the United States, and consequently within their territorial jurisdiction, are also excepted. They are considered as born in the country to which the vessel belongs. In the sense of public law, they are not born within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Ex Parte Chin King, 35 Fed. Rep. 354, 355 (1888)
By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status of condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy. 118; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy. 353, 21 Fed. Rep. 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. Rep. 382, 386 (1896)
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States must be controlling upon the question presented for decision in this matter, irrespective of what the common-law or international doctrine is. But the interpretation thereof is undoubtedly confused and complicated by the existence of these two doctrines, in view of the ambiguous and uncertain meaning of the qualifying phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which renders it a debatable question as to which rule the provision was intended to declare. Whatever of doubt there may be is with respect to the interpretation of that phrase. Does it mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws; or does it signify, “to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States,” in the sense that is contended for on the part of the government? This question was ably and thoroughly considered in Re Look Tin Sing, supra, where it was held that it meant subject to the laws of the United States.
Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845, pp. 236-260 at 246.
5. It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated, that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States. Those states were the constituent parts of the United States, and when the union was formed, and further state regulation on the point terminated, it follows, in the absence of a declaration to the contrary, that the principle which prevailed and was the law on such point in all the states, became immediately the governing principle and rule of law thereon in the nation formed by such union. If there had been any diversity on the subject in the state laws, it might have been difficult to ascertain which of the conflicting state rules was to become, or did become, the national principle. And if such diversity had existed, it is reasonable to believe that the framers of the constitution would have borne in mind, and enacted a uniform rule, or authorized Congress to establish one. The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the colonies and in the states, under the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
Won Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 674-75 (1898)
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.
Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional
169 U. S. 675
Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
With all due respect to Scalia, his opinion on this issue is dead wrong.
With all due respect, Scalia and I are correct and your dissent is not well taken.
