Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogerbh
So how would you interpret section 1 of the 14th Amendment in terms of how it should apply to anchor babies?
|
The law is almost infinitely malleable if the necessary political and cultural pressure is brought to bear. The plain, unqualified first 20 words would seem to put citizenship of anchor babies beyond dispute. And if one cannot take such plain words at face value, where the eff are we?
But it's not hard at all to imagine a different political/social climate in which some familiar legal tropes are used to create an exception. The most important factor being the element of "subterfuge", people not going about "normal" business but arranging everything to take advantage of a provision or exception in a way not envisioned. I can see it now: those words were "never intended" to allow "aliens" to "subvert" their purpose by immigrating "merely" or even "temporarily" to give birth. "What the authors never foresaw or imagined cannot be allowed." [That is, if public opinion is outraged by the result.]
Does anyone doubt the fate of the 2nd Amendment is about politics and culture?
The conflict between plain language vs intent goes on all the time, liberals and conservatives switching their opportunistic "philosophies" case by case. Here is a conservative proposal to ditch antiquated words to deal with modern realities. Liberals horrified. Typically the shoe is on the other foot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyLuck
That's the beauty of the document. It was written in a brilliantly abstract fashion so that would be relevant as society and culture changed
|
There is nothing abstract about the first 20 words of the 14th Amendment. Or the 2nd.
But, they can mean whatever we want.
