Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 5/1/2025 at 2:57 PM, Dahobbs said:

I don't think anyone disagrees that Supreme Court could come out with a totally different answer due to Calvinball. But that has nothing to do with legitimate legal analysis, so I'm unclear on what exactly you're scolding  @wildcat09 for. Y'all agree on the clear answer. Y'all agree that the Court could go another way just because. Where's the beef?

Because he accuses me of devil's advocacy for explaining how the argument goes.

To me, if you don't understand the problems and illegitimacies in the argument/decision and just criticize the decision, you're pissing in the wind.  

I mean, you're pissing in the wind either way, but it's a real megasquirt in a gale.

Posted

Great episode of On Point from Friday, covering the history and context of birthright citizenship and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It's a 45-minute-long interview/conversation with Heather Cox Richardson (full transcript is found in the link below as well).

I'd say anyone who doubts the intent of the 14th Amendment as we've commonly interpreted (until recently) absolutely should find the time to listen. The historical context that she outlines is unambiguous and affirms that, yes, we have indeed been correct that the way we view it today is EXACTLY how it was intended, as written, in the 1860s.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/05/02/birthright-citizenship-trump-history-heather-cox-richardson

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...