Only problem is the President has no hand in the process to amend the constitution so his opinion don’t mean a tinkers damn.
Sleepy Joe is a clueless idiot
Sleepy Joe is a clueless idiot
Biden says ERA is law of the land!!!!
- Thread starter blindedbythelight
- Start date
Not in the time frame in the legislation that presented the amendment to the states for ratification. Deadline was extended once by Congress but as soon as that expired the ratification of the ERA failed
ERA proponents have argued that the deadline was not binding because it was in the preamble to the amendment, rather than the text of the amendment itself.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind an amendment to the amendment process that would very specifically give a time period to any amendment once it’s been sent to the states. I don’t like that a 100 year-old amendment (ERA) or older could ostensibly just become the law like the 27th.
Speaking of Presidents not understanding how Constitutional amendments work, how about that line-item executive order repeal of birthright citizenship as written in the 14th Amendment? I'm interested in seeing the argument here, given the this snippet of text of the Amendment and whatnot: "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."
I might add that one was stating an opinion, one that happens to be backed up by the American Bar Association, and the other was attempting to change United States Constitution by executive fiat.
Subject to the jurisdiction means if the president signs an order that says you ain’t an American then you ain’t an American and you need to wade back across the river with Joe
I knew you were going that route:
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, Calif., in 1873 to parents who were Chinese citizens who resided in the United States at the time and did so for 20 years. At age 21, he returned to China to visit his parents; when he returned to the United States, Wong was denied entry on the ground that he was not a citizen. The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Justice Horace Gray’s majority opinion said that Wong Kim Ark, having “a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States,” became “at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States,” even though his parents were Chinese citizens. Gray wrote that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause fell in line with British and American common law when it came to people born in the United States as having claims to citizenship, with exceptions including the children of foreign ministers, enemy combatants on American soil, and people on foreign public ships. He explained that the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” pertained to citizenship claims made by the children of diplomats and hostile combatants.
Some people have contested conclusions from Wong Kim Ark regarding birthright citizenship. They cited language in the 1866 Civil Rights Act as supporting the argument that some immigrants weren’t under the “jurisdiction of the United States” because of their allegiance to another country. “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States,” the law read.
However, the Congressional Research Service back in 2018 looked at both viewpoints and said the majority of scholars thought the Wong Kim Ark precedent favored citizenship at birth on American soil. “The weight of current legal authority suggests that these executive and legislative proposals to restrict birthright citizenship would contravene the Citizenship Clause,” the CRS wrote. “At least since the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the prevailing view has been that all persons born in the United States are constitutionally guaranteed citizenship at birth unless their parents are foreign diplomats, members of occupying foreign forces, or members of Indian tribes.”
Updated: The birthright citizenship question and the Constitution | Constitution Center
On taking office, President Trump issued a Birthright Citizenship order entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”
constitutioncenter.org
None of these non-citizens can be arrested and charged with crimes if they aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and the state, you know, like diplomats. But since these non-citizens can be arrested and charged with crimes, they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and the state. I did not make up this argument. That is settled case law.
Similar threads
