Still wonder what happened to him. Drudge used to be peak, but he really went all-in for Biden, which I find weird.
I thought he sold the site years ago? So it's not him anymore. It's whatever ConInc group bought it.
This is wrong on so many levels.
1) Constitutional amendments are not laws.
2) The 14th was introduced and passed by republicans and supported by many northern democrats. It was centrist for the time and could be considered populist; but it had nothing to do with the modern conceptions of "left" and "right".
3) They're also not gentleman's agreements, that's a fucking retarded thing to say.
4) There's no misreading involved. Here's the text:
"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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If time travel is invented within your lifetime it would behoove you to go back to middle school and pay attention.
You are aware they don't teach the Consitution in American schools anymore, right? Instead they teach two things: Slavery and the Holocaust. Slavery is the original sin of America, the Holocaust is the original sin of Europe; Jews are the ultimate victims and must be treated as nobility forever because of it, Blacks are the secondary victims and it's America's fate to retool itself as a life support system for them and all other nonwhites, forever, as an attempt to make up for this great sin.
Looking back we learned those two facts over and over and over again, year after year. We didn't learn the constitution or the amendments or civics. No need. We don't need to know American values or how the Government worked, we did need to know that we're guilty and owe the rest of the world our future.
As for the 14th, it took me a moment to find what I vaguely remembered. United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 1898. They applied Birthright citizenship to illegal parents. Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Government and the 14th was never meant to be a blank check for infinity migration. Therefore, they do not qualify for birthright citizenship. This was the dissenting opinion by Fuller, and how Gray and the majority messed up.
It's also, AFAIK, the basis of Trump's EO today.
That's about as retarded as saying that 2A doesn't actually say people have a right to bear arms
No, saying it applies to every illegal that can make it to the magic clay and shit out a baby when they explicitly also had the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) in the same generation as the 14th Amendment (186
is akin to suggesting that "shall doesn't mean shall it means 'if you feel like it'" or "it says Militia and that means National Guard so private gun ownership doesn't exist."
The 14th was to solidify that ex-Confederates and ex-Slaves were citizens. It was never meant to make every single pregnant woman that makes it to the magic clay have a free anchor for the rest of her life.
I really don't see the argument that US has no jurisdiction over people in the country illegally working out very well
Can we conscript illegals in the United States in the event of a war? No? Of course not?
Then we do not have jurisdiction over them, and their kids do not qualify for birthright citizenship.
Edit: I was wrong about which case I was thinking of. Here's a quoe from
@MauMau about 25 pages back that links to Coultergeist talking about it. It was literally a footnote in an unrelated case snuck in by a lefty SCOTUS judge that said "yeah this probably applies to the children of illegals too."
It doesn't.
Well, reading
https://anncoulter.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies1/
another Supreme Court decision could easily overturn it, and it, birthright citizenship, might not be legally proper in the first place:
"And then, writing for the 5-4 majority in the 1982 case, Plyler v. Doe, Justice Brennan snuck in a footnote...."
"This point of view had nothing to do with the case and, therefore, constituted mere dicta, of no legal importance."
