heywood on 3/9/2024 at 23:47
But Jackson's citizenship predated the Constitution, and I think their complaint is concerning the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
demagogue on 4/9/2024 at 01:15
The relevant text is "natural-born citizen" under the qualifications of the president under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which is part of the original text from 1787. So it doesn't predate that. It does predate the 14th Amendment of 1868, which says in relevant part "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."
So that's their hook, that this amendment is meant to qualify the pre-existing qualification of natural-born, presumably (going by typical originalist-style kook argumentation) because if they didn't want to change that meaning, they would have not used the phrase "born or naturalized" and put "natural-born" in there somewhere. (That is, they expanded citizenship to everybody born, but by not using the magic words, they meant to not only not extended to this one tiny group of presidential candidates, but even limit it further for candidates from before since, as aforementioned, before this text Andrew Jackson could be president, so we'd have read this clause to even retract his citizenship rights so he couldn't afterwards.)
It's a stupid argument first because every piece of evidence you dig up about the purpose of the 14th Amendment is about expanding rights, not contracting them, but most importantly for this clause of all clauses, which was meant to extend citizenship to Blacks (and later Native Americans), basically any group born in the territory that had some complicated relationship to citizenship status under old slave-based laws, and it's just easier to cut the whole tree down whole from the base (jus soli, anyone born on the territory is a citizen, no further questions asked) than clip at individual cases, and this argument is clipping at a very narrow case... And you know it's meant to expand not contract rights in its context because the literal next clause is about prohibiting abridgements of "privileges or immunities of citizens"; and it's hard to say that being able to run for president isn't a privilege of citizens. How a judge could read "there must be an implied abridgement" in the context of text literally saying "there must be no abridgments" is kooksville right there.
Yeah, reading the text in that context to somehow be about limiting qualifications of citizens to be president is up there in terms of retroactive-interpretation of a text to get the answer you want completely ripped out of historical and legal context, i.e., judicial activism, what conservatives are supposed to hate more than anything. It's one of the bigger ironies of "originalism" how much abuse it has to do to actual historical understanding to get the answers it wants.
This is way before we even get to the part that their leading precedence was the Dred Scott case (it's okay for Blacks to be legally required to sit at the back of trains because they're not real citizens per this stupid argument), one of the most notoriously wrong supreme court cases in US history and definitely overturned in Brown v. Board; and citing this as a precedence in a term paper for a law school is the kind of thing that should get you a "see me after class" note by the professor in any functioning law school.
Anyway, long story short, the black letter text and precedence is all clear it's okay, and the 14th amendment is not at all clear it's changing any of that, and gives every indication it's doing the opposite if anything; if you're born in the territory, you can't have any less privileges or rights as any other citizen. There are a few other hoops to jump through (state vs. federal law, etc.) but it's not going to change that basic punchline in the end. I'm pulling out a wall of text because they're not just wrong, it's actually an offensive argument with a repulsive pedigree, which I guess is par for the course for these people.
Nicker on 4/9/2024 at 03:56
The original text of the constitution acquired ten amendments barely four years after its creation. The authors understood that the original text was a work in progress; incomplete and prone to error. They built in a tool for correcting it.
Whether citing the original text or appealing to a preternatural knowledge of the many authors' intentions, Originalism walks on shaky ground. The words which comprise the former, change their meaning, over time. The intentions of the framers can only be understood through their words (see the previous sentence), in the context of their time and heavily spiced with modern motives.
The preferred spice seems to be a blend of bullshit and desperation.
heywood on 4/9/2024 at 13:17
Quote Posted by demagogue
The relevant text is "natural-born citizen" under the qualifications of the president under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which is part of the original text from 1787. So it doesn't predate that. It does predate the 14th Amendment of 1868, which says in relevant part "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."
So that's their hook, that this amendment is meant to qualify the
pre-existing qualification of natural-born, presumably (going by typical originalist-style kook argumentation) because if they didn't want to change that meaning, they would have not used the phrase "born or naturalized" and put "natural-born" in there somewhere. (That is, they expanded citizenship to everybody born, but by not using the magic words, they meant to not only not extended to this one tiny group of presidential candidates, but even limit it further for candidates from before since, as aforementioned, before this text Andrew Jackson could be president, so we'd have read this clause to even retract his citizenship rights so he couldn't afterwards.)
It's a stupid argument first because every piece of evidence you dig up about the purpose of the 14th Amendment is about expanding rights, not contracting them, but most importantly for this clause of all clauses, which was meant to extend citizenship to Blacks (and later Native Americans), basically any group born in the territory that had some complicated relationship to citizenship status under old slave-based laws, and it's just easier to cut the whole tree down whole from the base (jus soli, anyone born on the territory is a citizen, no further questions asked) than clip at individual cases, and this argument is clipping at a very narrow case... And you know it's meant to expand not contract rights in its context because the literal next clause is about prohibiting abridgements of "privileges or immunities of citizens"; and it's hard to say that being able to run for president isn't a privilege of citizens. How a judge could read "there must be an implied abridgement" in the context of text literally saying "there must be no abridgments" is kooksville right there.
Yeah, reading the text in that context to somehow be about limiting qualifications of citizens to be president is up there in terms of retroactive-interpretation of a text to get the answer you want completely ripped out of historical and legal context, i.e., judicial activism, what conservatives are supposed to hate more than anything. It's one of the bigger ironies of "originalism" how much abuse it has to do to actual historical understanding to get the answers it wants.
This is way before we even get to the part that their leading precedence was the Dred Scott case (it's okay for Blacks to be legally required to sit at the back of trains because they're not real citizens per this stupid argument), one of the most notoriously wrong supreme court cases in US history and definitely overturned in Brown v. Board; and citing this as a precedence in a term paper for a law school is the kind of thing that should get you a "see me after class" note by the professor in any functioning law school.
Anyway, long story short, the black letter text and precedence is all clear it's okay, and the 14th amendment is not at all clear it's changing any of that, and gives every indication it's doing the opposite if anything; if you're born in the territory, you can't have any less privileges or rights as any other citizen. There are a few other hoops to jump through (state vs. federal law, etc.) but it's not going to change that basic punchline in the end. I'm pulling out a wall of text because they're not just wrong, it's actually an offensive argument with a repulsive pedigree, which I guess is par for the course for these people.
Obviously, the NFRA is not expecting the candidates to be disqualified, they are doing this to attract attention to the question of birthright citizenship. Conservatives have been complaining about it for decades, and they had an opportunity here to highlight it since three major Presidential candidates were born to non-citizen parents (both parents).
I totally agree that the 14th Amendment is clear in its intent. As you point out, it had to be as inclusive as it was to clear the decks. The question is whether that's a good standard today. Somehow, almost all countries in North and South America grant automatic citizenship based on right of soil, but almost none of the rest of the world does.
If the judiciary functions normally it would take another amendment to change. But I'm not sure we can take that for granted anymore. For the last 50 years we've been hearing conservative court appointees tell us how terrible judicial activism is. Now that they are in power, the activism is the worst its been since the 1930s.
demagogue on 4/9/2024 at 18:59
It's also funny to think that the one president that broke the principle not only wouldn't raise an eyebrow for them, but he gets regularly praised as the GOAT (granted before the 1868 amendment, but that's clearly not what they really care about, and wouldn't it still be "bad" for them even before that rule, something to reproach and not praise as the GOAT?), which is Andrew Jackson, who Trump and these types always highlight as their (
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=trump%27s+favorite+past+president) favorite president more or less it seems because he ethnically cleansed the American southeast of its native population, going by all the Trail of Tears jokes Trump likes to tell, which is the only thing linked to Jackson I've ever heard him reference to my recollection.
DuatDweller on 4/9/2024 at 20:26
Not only a foreign person cannot be a president, also they cannot work in the CIA or the FBI.
If I have that info correctly.
demagogue on 4/9/2024 at 20:58
George HW Bush was CIA director in the 1970s, so there goes that theory. Really the only two conditions are over 35 years old and natural-born citizen.
DuatDweller on 6/9/2024 at 09:06
If they are foreign I meant, they cannot be CIA or FBI.
I had a strange dream, Trump asked me which apps to delete from the phone, I got one right and he transferred 83 million dollars into my bank account.
Weird shit going on in the dreams department...
:erg:
demagogue on 6/9/2024 at 20:15
I see what you mean now.
IIRC we had an Israeli staff person in our State Dept. office, and (not that this has to be accurate) NCIS had a nominally former Mossad agent on the team... The CIA relies on foreign connections and assets, so there has to be at least that much allowance, and the FBI works with foreign police officers all the time on operations... I think they're even the lead agency for transnational operations. So foreign people are around. (I had a friend that works at Interpol with whom I'd talk about it, and I did some research about transnational police operations, e.g., for human, labor & wildlife trafficking, etc.)
I could easily they believe they have rules about certain positions and roles that restrict foreign-born people, but there are still a lot of foreign people involved in their day-to-day work, so I don't know how practically restrictive that kind of rule is. I mean if you were a foreign-born person that wanted to work "for" them, I bet you could find a way. But anyway we're talking about a rule for a single government position here (the presidency), so comparing it to a narrow set of cases (like high level staff CIA & FBI positions) would be appropriate anyway. So I take your point.
Starker on 7/9/2024 at 15:04
Allan Lichtman, one of the most accurate predictors of US presidential races has made his prediction in favour of Harris. His system has correctly predicted almost every election since 1984 with the only exception being the 2000 election where he predicted Gore would win.
[video=youtube;JoWt1EOA340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoWt1EOA340[/video]
