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).

https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/justice-scalias-two-most-essential-speeches

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.

And Scalia commented on substantive due process,

www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

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.

Got it,

As usual,you "got" nothing but bats flying around in your belfry.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Thou shall not kill.

Not even in defense of self,family,or nation?

Thou shall not steal.

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.

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'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.)

And Scalia commented on substantive due process,

www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

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"

Ever tried to explain this to people with no money and hungry children?

Breaking into my house to feed your little staving assholes... will cause those starving assholes to be fatherless.

In this socialist handout filthy snowflake society, there are plenty of options to feed your pathetic family besides stealing.

Personally, I believe in Natural Selection... let the weak, lazy, stupid and UNFORTUNATE die. We all gotta die sometime.

You're right Pete theft should be legal dumbass

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.

unless there is adequate capacity in society to ensure that human suffering is minimized.

Take your fucking snowflake BLEEDING HEART BULLSHIT, somewhere else. This ain’t no socialist chit chat site.

I am independent and yes I vote.

Yes, you are and that makes YOU a Socialist.

He's retarded with many negative social skills.

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.

I hope I don't burn in hell for it.

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.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/06/specials/levy-intent.html

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.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1110.html

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.”

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-iii/part-i/sec.-1401/

8 U.S.C. § 1401 (2016)

§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.

Yes, I can confirm that.

Thanks Fred.

For reference, were you confirming that I am a Catholic, like you, or that I am a fringe, kook Catholic, like the poster said?

You happen to be an American defector... that hides in a 3rd world jungle amongst spics.

I hope I don't burn in hell for it.

If you wanna find out what way you’re going, immediately, then come visit me. I’ll hook you up.

I also agree with you that some of those things are you, not Scalia. I was surprised to see that Scalia had said some of the things in your message, and pleased - I had not realized that Scalia was THAT close to me. I had problems with several of his interpretations.

But now I see that that was you, not him, which makes sense.

So, we agree on HOW the Constitution should be interpreted. That's something. There are not many people out there who see things quite this way. Many claim to, but then they go sideways when they come to something they really, really want politically. The 14th Amendment and anchor babies is an obvious example. Your analysis is absolutely right, but people who just want to stop the phenomena simply bend the language to suit them, which makes them dishonest, frankly.

Your ability to cut through the fog on the matter is rare. I appreciate it.

You're right Pete theft should be legal dumbass

The only dumbasses are those who refuse to face the reality of desperation.

Take your fucking snowflake BLEEDING HEART BULLSHIT, somewhere else. This ain’t no socialist chit chat site.

ROFLMAO!

Spoken by a cog in the machine of the state whose whole fucking life revolved around being a cog in the socialist system!

Not that you will understand this.

He's retarded with many negative social skills.

Yes,but all useful skills to have if you want to be a bully boy for Big Government,Inc. He knows how to suck up to those who boss him around in the vain hope he can become one of them.

Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason..

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.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist in -- to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution...

Our enemies want to see our Constitution infringed and violated. ---- As does your proposal...

The only dumbasses are those who refuse to face the reality of desperation.

Quite a few anti-constitutional desperatos on this thread..

You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution...

Thank God you don't get to decide what words mean. Legally trained judges do, and they went to places like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, where they learned what legal words mean on a consistent basis.

Me too. I speak the same language they do.

You speak the language of "I have angry politics, and I will make words mean whatever I say they mean in order to impose my will!"

Fortunately, you are just one crank. When it comes to the meaning of words of law, you can take it to the bank that what I say is true and accurate 100% of the time. Words mean things. Legal words mean things. They mean what courts and the legal profession and tradition and the institutions that teach these things say they mean. They do not mean what any old angry man thinks they mean.

Thank God. Because it means the law is predictable, and no subject to the whims of angryman.

Because I understand the law objectively and professionally, I can objectively and professionally tell you the places where I disagree with it, and what would have to happen for it to be changed to reflect what I want.

All you can do is go ballistic and try to redefine words to suit you - but honestly you're just an ignorant old jackass and not one other person in the world cares what you think words mean.

It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions. That's our legal system, that's our political system. That's how the game is played, and it is not treasonous for me to want to get my way.

You can make up whatever meanings of words you want to, but you're just a single angry old man pounding on a keyboard. You don't get to define what one single word means, you never will, and you're wrong.

What you want will never happen, because you don't get to define anything.

I don't either, but at least I am realist who knows what words DO mean, and what the system actually IS, so I don't sit around spinning fantasies of what the world would look like IF ONLY I got to define words to mean what I want them to mean.

You don't like Catholic beliefs or ideas and don't want to see them prevail. That's fine. I do. That's also fine. It's not treason. It never will be treason. And given fertility and demographic realities, over time I am very likely to win, and see what I want as the law of the land. There is no chance of that ever happening for you.

You're cranky and angry, you'll die cranky and angry. And after you die, you'll wake up and discover that the Catholics were right all along. So you are doomed to the defeat of everything you believe in in this world AND the next, for all eternity.

Sucks to be you.

Kavanaugh, the Jesuit coach

Where you anarchist LIBERALterians stumble, is understanding that our forefathers did expect that TAXES would be collected and utilized to fund benefits to the populace AS A WHOLE, via a tax collected system. All parts of the populace use the roadway, get arrested, use the courts system, use the public schools... so there is nothing socialist about funding it from a tax base.

Not all of the populace needs welfare, healthcare, cellphones, food stamps and housing... raising taxes to supply that shit is INCOME DISTRIBUTION... ie socialism.

Get your shit straight... because equating enforcing laws to welfare is a far stretch... one used by anarchist to justify anarchy.

More word redefinitions, I see. It's a sport here on The Island of Misfit Toys.

Post #29: — Kavanaugh has tutored at Washington Jesuit Academy, where he sits on the board of directors, and at J.O. Wilson Elementary School, according to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals website. He went to high school at Georgetown Prep — which Justice Neil Gorsuch also attended

---

By being Catholic he's "Jesuit"?

More word redefinitions, I see.

Jesuit Academy, J.O. School, Georgetown Prep.
Jesuit, Jesuit, and Jesuit.

Dang right he's Jesuit! What's your redefinition of Jesuit, Mark of the Beast Jesuit tattoo on his forehead?

So, we agree on HOW the Constitution should be interpreted. That's something. There are not many people out there who see things quite this way. Many claim to, but then they go sideways when they come to something they really, really want politically. The 14th Amendment and anchor babies is an obvious example.

I guess we agree. Thanks for the comments.

I would note that when stating what the law is, I try to state the prevailing interpretation with which I may disagree. As a result, I get accused of advocating all nature of things I disagree with.

Yes, you note a common sideways occurrence. Activist judges are railed against, and then a desired result is advocated which requires a differently activist judge to achieve.

Senator Jacob Howard stated upon introducing his amendment to the House version of the 14th Amendment (adding the citizenship clause), "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

The Lynch v. Clark case is notable as it is from 1844 and clearly shows the court affirmation of citizenship for babies of aliens before the 14th Amendment existed. Granting citizenship to the children of aliens was not a new concept begun with the 14th Amendment. The Amendment placed the matter beyond the reach of the legislature to change, primarily with the then recently freed slaves in mind.

What's your redefinition of Jesuit

A clergyman who has taken his vows and joined the Society of Jesus. That's a Jesuit.

Lay people may agree with the Jesuits, but they're not ordained clergy and they're not themselves Jesuits.

"Catholic" is not synonymous with "Jesuit", or vice versa.

A Jesuit is not a Franciscan, and neither is a Domincan. All three are clergy alone. All three are Catholic. And none of them are synonymous with Catholic. If you haven't taken holy orders and vows, you're not a Jesuit by definition.

That's how I define it - which is to say, that is what the word actually MEANS.

The other point is that you think Jesuits are very bad, but I think Jesuits are very good. You use the term as a term of alarm and accusation. I use the term to recognize some of the brightest and most capable clergy in the Catholic religion.

To distill it down: You - Jesuit BAAAAD. Me - Jesuit GOOD.

I wouldn't trust this guy any farther than the old Soviet-era defectors. They can say anything they want and sometimes the wilder it is, the better their handlers (or publishers) like it.

You don't like Catholic beliefs or ideas and don't want to see them prevail. That's fine. I do. That's also fine. It's not treason. It never will be treason.

You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our constitutions enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution...

You keep trying to make a rhetorical distinction: --- " It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions ----" (court opinions make law?)

Whereas our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..

Sucks to be a fanatic like you.

(Btw, As a boy I was confirmed as a Catholic, agree with most Christian principles, but am now agnostic enough to admit that I'll never understand religion.)

Obviously Supreme Court opinions make law.

Obviously, a fanatic like you ---- wants Supreme Court opinions to make law.

They don't. SCOTUS opinions decide legal disputes about constitutional issues.

Federal, State, and local legislators make law; -- laws that must comply with our Constitution..

In America, Judges make law. Always have. That’s why Roe is the law of the land.

I’m the realist who discusses the way things ARE, whether I like it or not.

It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions ----" (court opinions make law?)

Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..

Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...

Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..

Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...

Our Constitution is a short document that puts out a general structure of government, leaves just about everything to politics, and is clear as mud as to the actual power relationship between the Judiciary and either the Legislature or the Executive.

The Constitution is chock full of Common Law terms, which it does not define: the Common Law is ASSUMED by the Constitution, and the Common Law is judge-made law.

Practice has supplied the answer to the question marks: judicial review for constitutionality has been a hallmark of the Supreme Court since Marbury v. Madison, which was decided by a Court full of Founders, addressing a President and a Cabinet likewise full of Founders.

Marbury v. Madison is as much a product of the Founding Fathers as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and IT establishes that, yes, the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution means - and to create the Common Law of the Constitution, which is precisely what they have been doing ever since.

Our system of government is in fact "Catholic", in the sense that it is based on traditions of institutions dealing with each other in certain ways. You would like for our system of government to be "Protestant", with the written Constitution as the "Sola Scriptura" document which anybody, like you, can read and know what it all means just from the words in that document.

That IS NOT our system of government. And at NO POINT from its ratification by the Founding Fathers through the establishment of judicial review by the Founding Fathers (in Marbury) until today has our government resembled anything remotely approaching what you insist is "The Constitution" above.

No. Your little fairy tale of what the Constitution is, and means, and says, is simply your solipsistic read of some words, by your understanding. The law is what I have been saying - what I have been educated in, and am licensed to say in two jurisdictions. It is not what you believe it to be, based on your simplistic read and understanding of some words.

It IS not, and it never will be. The Constitution is not the Bible, and American government is not based on Sola Scriptura. It DOESN"T MATTER what you read the words to say. You are one single man, and your opinion governs nothing. I'm just one single man, and I know that my opinion doesn't govern anything either, but I earn a living by knowing what those written words ACTUALLY MEAN within the structure of government that we ACTUALLY HAVE, and THAT - and not your little exercise in solipsistic "Sola Scriptura" literalist constitutionalism - is what the Constitution IS, and MEANS.

I have to get it right, because if I don't, I don't eat.

I would not be insulting you so directly if you were not calling me a traitor over and over again. But you are. I am not a traitor. But you are a stubborn, ignorant old fool who cannot read the law properly, because you don't understand the words you are reading - and so therefore you supply what YOU think they mean, and manipulate them to attain the results YOU want to see. Problem is, you didn't go to law school and get to put on a black robe such that YOUR opinions have any weight on this matter, and so they don't.

Stop calling me a traitor and I'll stop coming after you personally. Keep doing it, and I'll keep pointing out that you're the crazy uncle in the attic who thinks he's St. Jerome.

You’re the solipsistic here, who mistakes his own opinions on the way things ought to be with the way things are. I’m the realist who discusses the way things ARE, whether I like it or not.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone and the tpaine Court of the Imagination™.

Just to get you acclimated to the tpaine Court of the Imagination™, here are a few unique provisions guaranteed to make you wonder why you bothered to study law.

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46847&Disp=7#C7

In the long run, SCOTUS opinions don't mean much, as people,and the legislators they elect have the right to ignore them, and write new laws that circumvent their supposed edicts.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-27 18:44:47 ET

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46277&Disp=49#C49

The 2nd [Amendment] has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.

tpaine posted on 2016-05-25 12:08:35 ET

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-23 21:26:13 ET

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732

During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136

Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional?

It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional..

- - - - - - - - - -

Our system of government is in fact "Catholic", in the sense that it is based on traditions of institutions dealing with each other in certain ways. You would like for our system of government to be "Protestant", with the written Constitution as the "Sola Scriptura" document which anybody, like you, can read and know what it all means just from the words in that document.

That IS NOT our system of government. And at NO POINT from its ratification by the Founding Fathers through the establishment of judicial review by the Founding Fathers (in Marbury) until today has our government resembled anything remotely approaching what you insist is "The Constitution" above.

The law is what I have been saying - what I have been educated in, and am licensed to say in two jurisdictions.

Stop calling me a traitor and I'll stop coming after you personally.

Feel free to come after me in any way you dream up. ---- I say dream because your replies are becoming increasingly bizarre, -- and unlike what a licensed professional would post.

Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..

Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...

Our written Constitution is a document which anybody, like me, can read and know what it basically means just from the words in the document.

Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on...

BTW, - concerning Marbury: ---- Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning -- -

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co- equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on...

It's not a question of hiding behind a license, it's a question of education and standards.

You have a political opinion. You like your political opinion. You read a document - the Constitution - and you read it in a way that allows you to say what you say.

That's nice.

It has no bearing on reality.

I have a law degree. That's not boasting, it's a fact. I have passed the bar exam in two states. Again, not boasting - a fact. In order to pass the bar exam, I had to get a series of questions right. See, there are right and wrong answers in the law, and you don't pass the bar and get a license to practice law unless you get enough of the answers right. The same is true with law school: you don't get the degree if you can't get the exam questions right.

There's no partial credit.

Now, thing is, some of the right answers - what the law IS - do not suit me. What I do that is different from you is that I recognize where my politics differ from the law, and I try to figure out how to get the law to change.

What you do is simply change the meaning of words and declare your opinion to be the law.

It reminds me of the joke about the engineer and the economist who wash up on a desert island with a box of canned food. They each go off to devise a way to get the cans opened. The engineer comes back with a device he made that used two rocks to crush the can, causing the contents to slide out into an waiting half-coconut shell.

The economist's solution began with "Well, first we assume a can opener. That's what you're doing: you're assuming a can opener.

here are a few unique provisions

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. ---- tpaine posted

Thank you for posting some of my opinions, as I stand by them all..

Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in Marbury:---

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co- equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on... ---- tpaine

I have a law degree. That's not boasting, it's a fact. I have passed the bar exam in two states. Again, not boasting - a fact. In order to pass the bar exam, I had to get a series of questions right. See, there are right and wrong answers in the law, and you don't pass the bar and get a license to practice law unless you get enough of the answers right.

Law exams are made up by other lawyers, proving of course, that if you want to be licensed you must agree with other lawyers. --- Ridiculous.

You claim that: --- "What I do that is different from you is that I recognize where my politics differ from the law, and I try to figure out how to get the law to change." -------------------- Well, I do exactly the same , the only difference being, --- I make sure that the new laws i advocate, are not UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..

Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...

Law exams are made up by other lawyers, proving of course, that if you want to be licensed you must agree with other lawyers. --- Ridiculous.

It does not prove that. Rather, it proves that if you want to be licensed, you have to know what the law IS.

YES, what the law is, IS determined by other lawyers - mainly judges. YES, most certainly that law is often the result of real abusive power grabs by judges. YES, I find quite a bit of the law offensive. But YES, the law IS what the courts and the lawyers who run things have decided it is. The courts WILL uphold that law, and the cops with their guns WILL enforce what the courts say. So YES, if you want to take other people's money for practicing in front of American courts, you have to know what the law IS - what will be enforced, what will happen.

You can think what you want to think without a license, but you can't go take big fees from people asserting that your opinion of the law actually IS the law. It isn't. The law is what the courts - which is to say the lawyers who sit on the bench - SAY the law is.

You don't hire a lawyer to have a philosophical discussion. You hire a lawyer to know the law for you, and to tell you what will happen if you do thus and so. It's not a matter of the lawyer's opinion so much as knowledge of the state of the actual LAW - whether the law is ultimately LEGITIMATE or not is not the question.

Obviously if the Supreme Court overrules Roe and bans abortion, it is not going to do that by stating "We do this because Rome has spoken." They will, rather, read the words of the Constitution and say that nobody can be deprived of life without due process, and due process is not possible for innocent unborn babies, so THEREFORE abortion must be unconstitutional. That's how they would do this.

Sure, this would have the EFFECT of erecting the Catholic canon law as the law of the nation, but the reason given for doing so will be pure-as-the- wind-driven-snow constitutionalism.

The laws against stealing are also religious, but we don't have to strike those down on that account either.

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed,

It may be dangerous, but it has the virtue of being true. Judges are the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.